[Cite as Tatom v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 2011-Ohio-7055.]

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 

RO-SHAWN TATOM 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2011-07788-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶1} Plaintiff, Ro-Shawn Tatom, an inmate formerly incarcerated at defendant, 

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF), filed this action alleging that several items 

of his personal property were lost or stolen when he was transferred to a segregation 

unit on two separate occasions, June 25 and July 30, 2010. Plaintiff's personal property 

was packed and delivered into the custody of SOCF staff incident to the transfers. 

Plaintiff suggested that an unidentified Corrections Officer (CO) coerced him into 

signing a property inventory form in order to receive his underclothing and hygiene 

items during his stay in segregation. According to plaintiff, the form did not list all of his 

property but he was told that the property was secure, it just wasn’t listed on the form. 

Plaintiff recalled that when he was released from segregation, he reported his missing 

property and a theft/loss report was prepared for this incident and for the earlier incident 

as well. Finally, plaintiff asserted that during his transfer from SOCF to Ohio State 

Penitentiary (OSP), either SOCF or OSP employees lost the files which contained the 

documentation necessary to establish proof of ownership for the alleged missing 

property. 
{¶2} In his complaint, plaintiff listed the following items as missing: 274 

photographs, 54 letters, and two legal books. Plaintiff requested damage recovery in 

the amount of $1,076.00, stating that “I’d like $3 per photo, $1 per letter, $200 for both 

legal books $100 each.” Plaintiff noted that “many other items were lost, but no 

evidence to support claim of possession without ‘lost’ paperwork.” Payment of the filing 

fee was waived. 

{¶3} Plaintiff submitted copies of three property inventory records dated July 

29, 2009, June 25, 2010, and July 30, 2010. In addition, plaintiff submitted notification 

of grievance forms, a theft/loss report, a disposition of grievance form dated September 

22, 2010, and a decision from the chief inspector dated November 10, 2010. The chief 

inspector stated as follows: “I reviewed the 7/30/10 and 6/25/10 packup sheets which 

you signed attesting that each contained an accurate listing of all of your personal 

property. You did not relay any items were missing. Based upon the information 

provided, I do not find evidence to support your claim.” 

{¶4} The court notes that the June 25, 2010 pack-up sheet lists a reasonable 

amount of pictures and letters but does not document any legal books. At the bottom of 

the page plaintiff signed that he received his property on July 6, 2010, and there is a 

notation that contains the word “missing” but the remaining words are essentially 

illegible. The July 30, 2010 pack-up sheet does not list any letters, photographs, legal 

books, or legal papers having been found in plaintiff’s possession when his property 

was packed incident to the transfer to segregation. 

{¶5} Defendant denied liability in this matter contending that plaintiff failed to 

offer any evidence to establish that any of his property was lost or stolen as a result of 

any breach of a duty of care owed on the part of SOCF personnel in regard to inmate 

property protection. Defendant asserted that plaintiff’s “claim involves three occasions 

on which plaintiff’s property was packed-up, inventoried, and placed in storage as a 

result of the plaintiff’s placement in security control on each occasion.” Defendant 

supported this contention with three attachments: pack-up sheets dated June 25, July 

17, and July 30, 2010. Defendant pointed out that there is no record of plaintiff 

possessing two legal books on any of the three pack-up sheets. Rather, the lists 

document one book and describe it as “religious.” Although defendant contended that 

each of the three forms records a reasonable amount of pictures, the court notes that 
the July 30, 2010 inventory does not list any pictures or letters.1

 Defendant maintained 

that plaintiff acknowledged receipt of his property on each occasion and that according 

to defendant “all such material was returned to the plaintiff.” Finally, defendant noted 

that on December 21, 2010, plaintiff was transferred to OSP. Defendant filed a copy of 

the inventory record for that transfer and items relevant to this claim include two books, 

a reasonable amount of letters and papers, and assorted pictures followed by the 

notation “all” or the number “911.” Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of these items on 

December 22, 2010. 

{¶6} Plaintiff filed a response essentially reiterating the allegations of his 

complaint. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶7} 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,¶8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, 

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

{¶8} “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,¶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. 

{¶9} 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. 

{¶10} 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. 

{¶11} 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 

 1 The preprinted reference under the column that indicates the institutional limits for inmate 

property, RA, or ‘reasonable amount” is merely circled and plaintiff maintains in his response that he 

made such marks to indicate the items were not packed and were indeed missing. 
defendant’s negligence. Barnum v. Ohio State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. 

{¶12} Plaintiff must produce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for 

the conclusion that 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. 

{¶13} The credibility of witnesses and the weight attributable to their 

testimony are primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St. 

2d 230, 39 O.O. 2d 366, 227 N.E. 2d 212, paragraph one of the syllabus. The court is 

free to believe or disbelieve, all or any part of each witness’s testimony. State v. Antill

(1964), 176 Ohio St. 61, 26 O.O. 2d 366, 197 N.E. 2d 548. The court does not find the 

assertions of plaintiff particularly persuasive regarding the allegations of alleged lost or 

stolen property. Plaintiff cannot recover for property loss when he fails to produce 

sufficient evidence to establish that defendant actually assumed control over the 

property. Whiteside v. Orient Correctional Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2002-05751, 2005-Ohio4455 obj. overruled, 2005-Ohio-5068. Plaintiff failed to prove that defendant actually 

exercised control over and failed to return his alleged missing property incident to the 

June 25, July 17, and July 30, 2010 transfers to segregation. 

{¶14} Plaintiff’s failure to prove delivery of the property items to defendant 

constitutes a failure to show imposition of a legal bailment duty on the part of defendant 

in respect to lost property. Prunty v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

(1987), 86-02821-AD. 

{¶15} Plaintiff has failed to show a causal connection between the loss of his 

property 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. 

{¶16} 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 that SOCF staff failed to comply with internal prison regulations and the 

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

 

 
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 

RO-SHAWN TATOM 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2011-07788-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: 

Ro-Shawn Tatom, #394-958 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

878 Coitsville-Hubbard Road Department of Rehabilitation 

Youngstown, Ohio 44505 and Correction 

 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

SJM/laa 

10/20 

Filed 11/2/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 3/30/12