[Cite as Stevens v. Mansfield Correctional Inst., 2009-Ohio-7167.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

KELLY JOE STEVENS 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-06206-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Kelly Joe Stevens, an inmate incarcerated at defendant, 

Mansfield Correctional Institution (ManCI), asserted two fellow inmates entered his 

unlocked cell, broke into his locked locker box, and stole a pair of his New Balance 

tennis shoes that were stored inside the locker. Plaintiff further asserted the thieves 

gained access to his cell when a ManCI employee unlocked the cell door. Plaintiff 

stated he immediately reported the theft of his shoes to ManCI and a search was 

conducted, but the search did not include the cell of the suspected thieves. Plaintiff 

related he was informed by other inmates the identities of the thieves. Plaintiff recalled 

his shoes were stolen at approximately 5:00 p.m. on February 10, 2009. 

{¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff contended his shoes were stolen as a proximate cause of 

negligence on the part of ManCI in allowing inmate thieves access to his locker box. 

Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $60.16, the total purchase 

price of a pair of New Balance Basketball shoes. Plaintiff submitted documentation 

showing he purchased a pair of New Balance Basketball shoes on April 14, 2008. 
Payment of the filing fee was waived. 

{¶ 3} 3) Defendant argued there is no evidence available to prove ManCI staff 

allowed access to plaintiff’s cell on February 10, 2009, thereby facilitating a theft. 

Defendant acknowledged plaintiff’s cell door was open when ManCI personnel began 

investigating the report of a theft. However, defendant noted plaintiff’s cellmate was 

present in the cell at the time ManCI staff discovered the cell door was unsecured. 

Therefore, defendant suggested “the cell was unsecured because [p]laintiff’s cellmate 

was present in the cell at the time of the alleged theft.” Defendant explained a theft 

report was compiled on February 10, 2009 incident to plaintiff reporting the theft of his 

shoes, but this report “could not be located.” Therefore, a second report ((copy 

submitted) dated March 11, 2009 was filed. It was recorded on this theft report that 

ManCI employee, Officer Hadden, searched cells 101-117 after plaintiff reported the 

loss of his shoes. The shoes were not recovered during the search. Defendant 

submitted copies of grievances plaintiff filed where he alleged his cellmate and another 

inmate stole his shoes. 

{¶ 4} 4) Plaintiff filed a response asserting defendant violated policy when he 

was assigned a cellmate. Plaintiff related the cells at ManCI were designed “to house 

one inmate per cell.” Plaintiff maintained ManCI staff should have questioned his 

cellmate at the time the theft was reported. Plaintiff argued defendant did not make a 

“reasonable attempt to protect, or recover” his property. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 5} 1) Although not strictly responsible for a prisoner’s property, defendant 

had at least the duty of using the same degree of care as it would use with its own 

property. Henderson v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1979), 76-0356-AD. 

{¶ 6} 2) Plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that he suffered a loss and that this loss was proximately caused by 

defendant’s negligence. Barnum v. Ohio State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. 

{¶ 7} 3) This court in Mullett v. Department of Correction (1976), 76-0292-AD, 

held that defendant does not have the liability of an insurer (i.e., is not liable without 

fault) with respect to inmate property, but that it does have the duty to make “reasonable 

attempts to protect, or recover” such property. 

{¶ 8} 4) Plaintiff must produce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for 
the conclusion defendant’s conduct is more likely than not a substantial factor in 

bringing about the harm. Parks v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1985), 

85-01546-AD. 

{¶ 9} 5) In order to recover against a defendant in a tort action, plaintiff must 

produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for sustaining his claim. If his 

evidence furnishes a basis for only a guess, among different possibilities, to any 

essential issue in the case, he fails to sustain the burden as to such issue. Landon v. 

Lee Motors, Inc. (1954), 161 Ohio St. 82, 53 O.O. 25, 118 N.E. 2d 147. 

{¶ 10} 6) In order to prevail, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that defendant breached that duty, and that 

defendant’s breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, 

Inc., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E. 2d 1088, ¶8 citing Menifee v. Ohio 

Welding Products, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 75, 77, 15 OBR 179, 472 N.E. 2d 707. 

{¶ 11} 7) “Whether a duty is breached and whether the breach proximately 

caused an injury are normally questions of fact, to be decided by . . . the court . . .” 

Pacher v. Invisible Fence of Dayton, 154 Ohio App. 3d 744, 2003-Ohio-5333, 798 N.E. 

2d 1121, ¶41, citing Miller v. Paulson (1994), 97 Ohio App. 3d 217, 221, 646 N.E. 2d 

521; Mussivand v. David (1989), 45 Ohio St. 3d 314, 318, 544 N.E. 2d 265. 

{¶ 12} 8) The fact defendant supplied plaintiff with a locker box to secure 

valuables constitutes prima facie evidence of defendant discharging its duty of 

reasonable care. Watson v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1987), 86-

02635-AD. 

{¶ 13} 9) The fact that a theft occurred is insufficient to show defendant’s 

negligence. Williams v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 83-07091-AD; 

Custom v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1986), 84-02425. Plaintiff must show 

defendant breached a duty or ordinary or reasonable care. Williams. 

{¶ 14} 10) Defendant is not responsible for thefts committed by inmates unless an 

agency relationship is shown or it is shown that defendant was negligent. Walker v. 

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1978), 78-0217-AD. 

{¶ 15} 11) The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[t]he language in R.C. 

2743.02 that ‘the state’ shall ‘have its liability determined *** in accordance with the 

same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties ***’ means that the state 
cannot be sued for its legislative or judicial functions or the exercise of an executive or 

planning function involving the making of a basic policy decision which is characterized 

by the exercise of a high degree of official judgment or discretion.” Reynolds v. State

(1984), 14 Ohio St. 3d 68, 70, 14 OBR 506, 471 N.E. 2d 776; see also Von Hoene v. 

State (1985), 20 Ohio App. 3d 363, 364, 20 OBR 467, 486 N.E. 2d 868. Prison 

administrators are provided “wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of 

policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and 

discipline and to maintain institution security.” Bell v. Wolfish (1979), 441 U.S. 520, 547, 

99 S. Ct. 1861, 60 L. Ed. 2d 47. 

{¶ 16} 12) Prison regulations, including those contained in the Ohio 

Administrative Code, “are primarily designed to guide correctional officials in prison 

administration rather than to confer rights on inmates.” State ex rel. Larkins v. 

Wilkinson, 79 Ohio St. 3d 477, 1997-Ohio-139, 683 N.E. 2d 1139, citing Sandin v. 

Conner (1995), 515 U.S. 472, 481-482, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418. 

Additionally, this court has held that “even if defendant had violated the Ohio 

Administrative Code, no cause of action would exist in this court. A breach of internal 

regulations in itself does not constitute negligence.” Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. 

and Corr. (1993), 67 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 3, 643 N.E. 2d 1182. Accordingly, to the extent 

plaintiff alleges ManCI staff failed to comply with internal prison regulations and the 

Ohio Administrative Code, he fails to state a claim for relief. 

{¶ 17} 13) Plaintiff has failed to show any causal connection between any 

property theft and any breach of a duty owed by defendant in regard to protecting 

inmate property. Druckenmiller v. Mansfield Correctional Inst. (1998), 97-11819-AD; 

Melson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2003), Ct. of Cl. No. 2003-

04236-AD, 2003-Ohio-3615. 

{¶ 18} 14) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, his 

items were stolen and unrecovered as a proximate result of any negligent conduct 

attributable to defendant. Fitzgerald v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

(1998), 97-10146-AD. 
 

 

 

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

KELLY JOE STEVENS 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-06206-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION

 Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth 

in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor 

of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. 

 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Kelly Joe Stevens, #510-101 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 
P.O. Box 788 Department of Rehabilitation 

1150 N. Main Street and Correction 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

RDK/laa 

10/22 

Filed 11/20/09 

Sent to S.C. reporter 3/12/10