[Cite as Meyer v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2010-Ohio-3635.]

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

JOHN MEYER 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATIONS AND CORRECTIONS 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-06907-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, John Meyer, a former inmate under the custody of defendant, 

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC), and formerly incarcerated at the 

Pickaway Correctional Institution (PCI), filed this claim alleging three separate causes of 

action against defendant. Initially, plaintiff claimed that he was held by defendant for a 

period of one day beyond the expiration of his criminal sentence for breaking and 

entering and possession of criminal tools. Plaintiff stated that: “I was released on 

August 13, 2007; one day longer than I was sentenced to.” Plaintiff essentially asserted 

that he was falsely imprisoned by DRC for a period of one day. Secondly, plaintiff 

maintained that his television set and fan were confiscated by PCI staff and not 

returned. Thirdly, plaintiff contended that he was refused dental treatment by the dentist 

at PCI and consequently lost a tooth as a result of not being provided with needed 

dental care. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $500.00 for his false 

imprisonment claim, $100.00 for his property loss claim, and $1,500.00 for his medical 

claim involving lack of dental treatment. Plaintiff filed this claim on August 13, 2009. 
The filing fee was paid. 

{¶ 2} Defendant denied liability on all three causes of action forwarded by 

plaintiff. Defendant explained that plaintiff received a six-month sentence on his 

criminal convictions which is calculated as a sentence of 182.5 days. Defendant further 

explained that plaintiff was admitted to DRC custody on March 23, 2007 with 38 days 

credit and was released from custody on August 13, 2007 upon expiration of his 

sentence of 182.5 days. In regard to the property loss claim and medical claim, 

defendant has asserted that “[p]laintiff has provided no detail” to investigate or respond 

to these claims. Defendant advised that plaintiff did not file any grievances or notify any 

DRC personnel about property loss or lack of dental care. 

{¶ 3} R.C. 2743.16(A) provides: 

{¶ 4} “Subject to division (B) of this section, civil actions against the state 

permitted by sections 2743.01 and 2743.20 of the Revised Code shall be commenced 

no later than two years after the date of accrual of the cause of action or within any 

shorter period that is applicable to similar suits between private parties.” (Emphasis 

added.) 

{¶ 5} The applicable statute of limitations for a cause of action which alleges false 

imprisonment is R.C. 2305.11(A), and it requires that an action for false imprisonment 

be commenced within one year after its accrual. See Mickey v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & 

Corr., Franklin App. No. 02AP-539, 2003-Ohio-90; Haddad v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr, 

Franklin App. No. 01AP-1130, 2002-Ohio-2813. As a general rule, a claim for false 

imprisonment accrues upon plaintiff’s release from confinement. It is undisputed that 

plaintiff was released from DRC custody on August 13, 2007 and his complaint was filed 

on August 13, 2009. Consequently, plaintiff’s claim for false imprisonment is barred by 

the one-year statute of limitations as a matter of law. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim for 

false imprisonment is dismissed. 

{¶ 6} The applicable statute of limitations for a dental claim is found in R.C. 

2305.113. [R.C.2305.11.3] R.C. 2305.113(A) states: “. . . an action upon a . . . dental . 

. . claim shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued.” The 

allegations presented in the instant action constitute a dental claim, specifically refusal 

by dental professionals to provide dental treatment to plaintiff. 

{¶ 7} [R.C. 2305.11.3] R.C. 2305.113(E)(6) states: 
{¶ 8} “‘Dental claim’ means any claim that is asserted in any civil action against a 

dentist, or against any employee or agent of a dentist, and that arises out of a dental 

operation or the dental diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person. ‘Dental claim’ 

includes derivative claims for relief that arise from a dental operation or the dental 

diagnosis, care, or treatment of a person.” 

{¶ 9} Defendant, in the instant claim, is subject to suit for a dental claim. 

Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued at sometime prior to August 13, 2007 when he 

alleged that he was refused access to dental care. Therefore, the court that concludes 

plaintiff’s claim falls outside the specific statute of limitations for filing dental claims (one 

year) since the present action was not commenced until August 13, 2009. The 

determination is that plaintiff’s claim was not timely filed and is consequently, dismissed. 

{¶ 10} Assuming plaintiff’s claim for property loss is timely filed, the court 

concludes that plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his 

allegations that his television set and fan were wrongly confiscated. For plaintiff to 

prevail on a claim of negligence, he must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, 

that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached that duty, and that the breach 

proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 99 Ohio St. 3d 

79, 2003-Ohio-2573,¶8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio 

St. 3d 75, 77, 15 OBR 179, 472 N.E. 2d 707. 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. 

{¶ 11} 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. Plaintiff has 

failed to prove a causal connection between any property loss and any breach of duty 

owed by defendant in regard to protecting inmate property. Druckenmiller v. Mansfield 

Correctional Inst. (1998), 97-11819-AD. Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that his television set and fan were lost 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 

JOHN MEYER 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATIONS AND CORRECTIONS 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-06907-AD 

Clerk Miles C. Durfey 

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 in regard to the property loss claims. The false imprisonment claim and 

the dental claim are DISMISSED with prejudice. Court costs are assessed against 

plaintiff. 

 

 ________________________________ 

 MILES C. DURFEY 

 Clerk 

Entry cc: 
John Meyer Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

8969 Applewood Drive Department of Rehabilitation 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45236 and Correction 

 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

RDK/laa 

3/3 

Filed 3/30/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 8/6/10