[Cite as Moore v. London Corr. Inst., 2011-Ohio-7020.]

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

JOHNNY L. MOORE 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant

Case No. 2011-09021-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Johnny Moore, an inmate incarcerated at defendant, London 

Correctional Institution (LoCI), alleged that several items of his personal property were 

stolen from his cell housing unit on January 8, 2011, at a time when he was away from 

the unit. Plaintiff further alleged that the “officer in fact was negligent by not doing 

security rounds.” Plaintiff recalled that he left the cell at approximately 5:25 p.m. to 

report to the chow hall. Plaintiff related that when he returned to his bed area he 

noticed that his footlocker had been broken into and several property items had been 

stolen. Plaintiff insisted that his footlocker had been secured with a combination lock 

before he left and that when he returned the lock was broken. According to plaintiff, 

Sergeant Hudson reviewed the cameras but he was unable to identify the inmate who 

stole plaintiff’s belongings. 
{¶ 2} Plaintiff stated that the stolen property included the following: one Sony 

Walkman CD player, one pair of Koss headphones, and one Pac-man game. Plaintiff 

maintained that his property was stolen as a proximate result of negligence on the part 

of LoCI staff in failing to adequately protect the property from theft attempts. Plaintiff 

filed this complaint seeking to recover $128.12, the stated replacement cost of his 

alleged stolen property. Payment of the filing fee was waived. 

{¶ 3} Defendant denied any liability in this matter contending that plaintiff failed 

to offer any evidence to prove that his property was stolen as a proximate result of any 

negligent conduct on the part of defendant. Defendant denied ever exercising control 

over any of the alleged stolen property items. Defendant argued that no evidence has 

been offered to establish that plaintiff suffered property loss as a result of any act or 

omission attributable to LoCI personnel. 

{¶ 4} Plaintiff did not file a response. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 5} 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. 

{¶ 6} 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. 

{¶ 7} 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. 

{¶ 8} 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. 

{¶ 9} 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. 

{¶ 10} “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; 

{¶ 11} The allegation that a theft may have occurred is insufficient to show 

defendant's negligence. Williams v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 83-

07091-AD; Custom v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 84-02425. Plaintiff 

must show defendant breached a duty of ordinary or reasonable care. Williams. 

{¶ 12} 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. However, in the instant claim, 

plaintiff has failed to prove defendant was negligent or that officers failed to perform 

security rounds in the housing unit. Therefore, no liability shall attach to defendant as a 

result of any theft based on this contention. 

{¶ 13} The fact that 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. 

{¶ 14} Defendant is not required to take extraordinary measures to provide 

inmates means to secure their property. Andrews v. Allen Correctional Inst., Ct. of Cl. 

No. 2008-09732-AD, 2009-Ohio-4268. 

{¶ 15} Generally, defendant has a duty to conduct a search for plaintiff's property 

within a reasonable time after being notified of the theft. Phillips v. Columbus 

Correctional Facility (1981), 79-0132-AD; Russell v. Warren Correctional Inst. (1999), 

98-03305-AD. 

{¶ 16} Moreover, a search is not always necessary. In Copeland v. Department 

of Rehabilitation and Correction (1985), 85-03638-AD, the court held that defendant had 
no duty to search for missing property if the nature of the property is such that it is 

indistinguishable and cannot be traced to plaintiff. 

{¶ 17} Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 

defendant was negligent in respect to making any attempts to recover distinguishable 

or indistinguishable stolen property. See Williams v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. 

No. 2005-11094-AD, 2006-Ohio-7207. 

{¶ 18} Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any 

of his property was stolen or unrecovered as a proximate result of any negligent 

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

Correction (1998), 97-10146-AD; Hall v. London Correctional Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2008-

04803-AD, 2008-Ohio-7088. 

{¶ 19} In addition, 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, 479, 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 

that plaintiff alleges that LoCI staff somehow violated internal prison regulations and the 

Ohio Administrative Code, he fails to state a claim for relief. See Sharp v. Dept of 

Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2008-02410-AD, 2008-Ohio-7064, ¶5. Consequently, 

plaintiff's claim is denied. 
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 

JOHNNY L. MOORE 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2011-09021-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: 

Johnny L. Moore, #A615-265 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

P.O. Box 69 Department of Rehabilitation 

1580 State Rt. 56 and Correction 

London, Ohio 43140 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

10/12 

Filed 10/25/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 3/13/12