[Cite as Perry v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-2830.]

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

RAY A. PERRY 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-09574 

Judge Joseph T. Clark 

Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo 

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

{¶ 1} On March 17, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to “order all settlement offers to 

be submitted” to the court. On March 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for default 

judgment. On March 24, 2011, defendant filed a memorandum contra to plaintiff’s 

motion and a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B). On March 30, 

2011, plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s motion, and a motion to “order discovery.” 

On March 31, 2011, plaintiff filed an additional response to defendant’s motion. The 

motions are now before the court on a non-oral hearing pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D). 

{¶ 2} With regard to plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, plaintiff argues that 

defendant did not timely respond to his settlement demand and thus he is entitled to 

judgment in his favor. Plaintiff’s motion “to order discovery” seeks an order from the 

court finding that defendant failed to comply with certain statutes. Upon review, 

plaintiff’s motions are not well-taken and are DENIED. 

{¶ 3} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows: 
Case No. 2010-09574 - 2 - ENTRY

{¶ 4} “Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of 

evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that 

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as 

stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from 

the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable 

minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party 

against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to 

have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party’s favor.” See also 

Gilbert v. Summit County, 104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing Temple v. Wean 

United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317. 

{¶ 5} Plaintiff alleges that he has been unlawfully subject to the supervision of 

the Adult Parole Authority (APA), a department of defendant, since his release from 

prison on August 2, 2010. Plaintiff claims that such supervision amounts to “false 

imprisonment.” 

{¶ 6} “False imprisonment occurs when a person confines another intentionally 

‘without lawful privilege and against his consent within a limited area for any appreciable 

time * * *.’” Bennett v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 107, 109, 

quoting Feliciano v. Kreiger (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 69, 71. The elements of a false 

imprisonment claim are: 1) expiration of the lawful term of confinement; 2) intentional 

confinement after the expiration; and 3) knowledge that the privilege initially justifying 

the confinement no longer exists. Corder v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1994), 94 

Ohio App.3d 315, 318. 

{¶ 7} In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant filed the affidavit 

of Melissa Adams, chief of defendant’s Bureau of Sentence Computation. Adams 

states, in part, that in 1993 plaintiff was convicted of felonious assault, aggravated 
Case No. 2010-09574 - 3 - ENTRY

burglary, and carrying a concealed weapon by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common 

Pleas, and that he was sentenced to a three-year prison term for a gun specification 

consecutive with an eight to 25-year prison term for the felonious assault and 

aggravated burglary charges. Adams further avers that plaintiff has been granted 

parole several times, but he has violated the conditions of his release on many of those 

occasions. Accordingly, plaintiff was declared a “violator at large” on January 15, 2002, 

November 15, 2004, and September 29, 2005, and convicted of additional felonies in 

2003, 2005, and 2007, all by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Adams 

states that the result of plaintiff’s time “at large” and additional convictions is that the 

expiration of his maximum sentence is April 13, 2023. 

{¶ 8} Based upon the undisputed averments made by Adams, the court finds 

that inasmuch as plaintiff’s lawful term of confinement does not expire until April 13, 

2023, defendant was privileged to imprison or supervise plaintiff at all times relevant. 

 To the extent that plaintiff is challenging the sentences imposed upon him by the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, it is well-settled that a plaintiff may not 

substitute an action in the Court of Claims for a right of appeal in a different court. See 

Hardy v. Belmont Corr. Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2004-09631, 2006-Ohio-623. “R.C. 2743.02 

does not embrace jurisdiction to review criminal proceedings occurring in courts of 

common pleas.” Donaldson v. Court of Claims of Ohio (May 19, 1992), Franklin App. 

No. 91AP-1218; see also Troutman v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin App. Nos. 

03AP-1240 and 04AP-670, 2005-Ohio-334. 

{¶ 9} Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that defendant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is 

GRANTED and judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed 

against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its 

date of entry upon the journal. 
Case No. 2010-09574 - 4 - ENTRY

 _____________________________________ 

 JOSEPH T. CLARK 

 Judge 

cc: 

 

Emily M. Simmons 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Ray A. Perry 

1550 Superior Avenue 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

MR/cmd

Filed May 24, 2011 

To S.C. reporter June 7, 2011