[Cite as Yeager v. Richland Correctional Inst., 2010-Ohio-6670.]

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

ANDRE M. YEAGER 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

RICHLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-05099-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Andre Yeager, a former inmate incarcerated at defendant, 

Richland Correctional Institution (RiCI), filed this action alleging his personal property 

was confiscated by RiCI staff on November 25, 2008 and subsequently destroyed as 

contraband without obtaining proper authorization to carry out the destruction. Plaintiff 

claimed defendant’s personnel violated internal regulations when charging him with 

possession of contraband and disposing of the declared contraband items. Plaintiff 

seeks damages in the amount of $310.32, the stated replacement value of the 

confiscated property which included clothing, books, personal hygiene items, food 

products, and other sundry items. The filing fee was paid. 

{¶ 2} 2) Attached with his complaint, plaintiff submitted a copy of a “Conduct 

Report” he was issued on November 25, 2008 incident to RiCI staff confiscating his 

property. According to information in the “Conduct Report,” the property was 

confiscated due to the fact plaintiff possessed excessive items which did not comply 

with defendant’s internal restrictions regarding volume limitations (2.4 cubic feet). Also 

submitted with his complaint was a “Contraband Control Slip” plaintiff was issued when 
his property was confiscated on November 25, 2008. Confiscated property items listed 

on this “Contraband Control Slip” include the following: five boxer shorts, one towel, two 

socks, one set of headphones, one bowl, one rice, two sweat pants, two wash cloths, 

four t-shirts, and two books. 

{¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff submitted a copy of a “Disposition of Grievance” dated 

January 16, 2009, in which the RiCI Inspector denied plaintiff’s grievance regarding the 

confiscation and disposition of his property. According to information contained in this 

“Disposition of Grievance,” plaintiff was afforded the option to either authorize the 

mailing of the confiscated property to an outside address or have the confiscated 

property destroyed. Furthermore, it was noted that plaintiff made no decision 

concerning the disposition of the confiscated items. Plaintiff also submitted a copy of 

his grievance appeal dated February 9, 2009 in which defendant’s Chief Inspector found 

plaintiff was given the opportunity to either mail out the confiscated items or have the 

items destroyed when the charges in his November 25, 2008 “Conduct Report” were 

heard. The Chief Inspector found plaintiff “refused to give an answer as to what you 

wanted to do with it (confiscated property).” Plaintiff specifically denied charges in the 

“Conduct Report” he was issued were ever heard by defendant’s “Rules Infraction 

Board (RIB).” Plaintiff asserted the confiscated property was subsequently destroyed 

by RiCI staff without obtaining proper authorization. 

{¶ 4} 4) Defendant acknowledged five under shorts, one towel, four t-shirts, 1 

set of headphones, one bowl, one rice, two sweat pants, two wash cloths, two books, 

and two socks were confiscated from plaintiff’s possession on or about November 25, 

2008 by RiCI staff. Defendant also acknowledged the confiscated property items were 

subsequently destroyed three months later. Defendant asserted plaintiff was afforded 

an opportunity to authorize the mailing of the confiscated property, but refused to make 

any choice in regard to the disposition of the confiscated property. Defendant argued 

plaintiff cannot maintain an action for the value of the destroyed property since the 

property was declared contraband and therefore plaintiff had no right to possess 

contraband. Defendant pointed out plaintiff claimed RiCI staff confiscated other 

property not listed on the “Contraband Control Slip.” This property claimed consisted 

mostly of food products and personal hygiene items. Defendant stated, “Plaintiff has 

failed to provide verification of legitimate ownership to the property claimed to be 
confiscated.” In regard to the known confiscated property, defendant contended RiCI 

staff acted properly and in accordance with internal policy when hearing the charges 

against plaintiff contained in the November 25, 2008 “Conduct Report.” Defendant 

explained the “Conduct Report” was heard by RiCI employee, Sergeant Burkhart after 

being issued by RiCI employee, Correctional Officer Rose. Defendant further explained 

that although the “Conduct Report” was referred to RIB for disposition, it was not 

processed through RIB. Defendant pointed out the “Conduct Report,” after being heard 

by Sergeant Burkhart, was affirmed by RIB with no participation by plaintiff. Defendant 

offered that plaintiff refused to participate in the initial hearing of the charges before 

Sergeant Burkhart. Defendant asserted Sergeant Burkhart acted appropriately in 

conducting proceedings on the “Conduct Report” ex parte since plaintiff refused to 

participate. Defendant did not provide any documentation produced by Sergeant 

Burkhart in regard to any hearing officer report. Defendant did not produce any 

documents showing plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to mail out the confiscated 

property. Defendant did not produce a statement from Burkhart. 

{¶ 5} 5) Plaintiff filed a response insisting he was not given an opportunity to 

participate in the hearing of the “Conduct Report” by sergeant Burkhart. Plaintiff again 

asserted defendant failed to follow internal regulations when hearing the “Conduct 

Report.” Plaintiff maintained Sergeant Burkhart under defendant’s administrative 

regulations was prohibited from providing any disposition in reference to the charges in 

the “Conduct Report.” Furthermore, plaintiff argued defendant failed to follow proper 

procedure when destroying the confiscated property. Plaintiff claimed he was never 

given an opportunity to mail the confiscated property and also claimed the confiscated 

items were destroyed three days after the confiscation occurred. Plaintiff advised 

defendant failed to follow internal regulations when destroying the confiscated property 

by not obtaining a forfeiture order prior to carrying out the destruction of the declared 

contraband. Plaintiff contended that since defendant did not have proper authority to 

destroy the confiscated items, liability has consequently, been established. Plaintiff 

produced evidence to establish defendant confiscated five under shorts, one towels, 

four t-shirts, one set of headphones, one bowl, one rice, two socks, two sweat pants, 

two wash cloths, and two books from his possession on November 25, 2008. Plaintiff 

did not produce any evidence other than his own assertion to prove any additional 
property was confiscated by defendant on November 25, 2008. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 6} 1) 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. 

{¶ 7} 2) 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. 

{¶ 8} 3) 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. 

{¶ 9} 4) 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 419. Additionally, this court 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 RiCI staff failed to 

comply with internal prison regulations and the Ohio Administrative Code, he fails to 

state a claim for relief. 

{¶ 10} 5) Plaintiff’s failure to prove delivery of claimed missing property 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. Plaintiff has failed to prove defendant exercised 

control over any property not listed on the “Contraband Control Slip” (dated November 

25, 2008). 

{¶ 11} 6) Plaintiff cannot recover for property loss when he fails to produce 

sufficient evidence to establish defendant actually assumed control over the property. 

Whiteside v. Orient Correctional Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2002-05751, 2005-Ohio-4455 obj. 
overruled, 2005-Ohio-5068. 

{¶ 12} 7) 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, as 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. 

{¶ 13} 8) 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 finds plaintiff’s 

assertions persuasive regarding the failure of defendant to provide him an opportunity to 

mail out the known confiscated property. The court does not find defendant’s assertions 

persuasive in regard to the contention plaintiff was given an opportunity to mail out the 

items contained on the “Contraband Control Slip.” 

{¶ 14} 9) It has been previously held an inmate plaintiff may recover the value 

of confiscated contraband property destroyed by agents of defendant when those 

agents acted without authority or right to carry out the property destruction. Berg v. 

Belmont Correctional Institution (1998), 97-09261-AD; Wooden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. 

& Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2004-01958-AD, 2004-Ohio-4820; Hemsley v. N. Cent. 

Correctional Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2005-03946-AD, 2005-Ohio-4613; Mayfield v. Richland 

Correctional Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2005-07976-AD, 2006-Ohio-358. In the instant claim, 

plaintiff has proven his confiscated property (listed on the November 25, 2008 

“Contraband Control Slip”) was destroyed by RiCI staff without authorization and 

consequently, defendant is liable for the destroyed property. 

{¶ 15} 10) The standard measure of damages for personal property loss is 

market value. McDonald v. Ohio State Univ. Veterinary Hosp. (1994), 67 Ohio Misc. 2d 

40, 644 N.E. 2d 750. 

{¶ 16} 11) As trier of fact, this court has the power to award reasonable 

damages based on evidence presented. Sims v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

(1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 239, 577 N.E. 2d 160. 

{¶ 17} 12) Damage assessment is a matter within the function of the trier of fact. 
Litchfield v. Morris (1985), 25 Ohio App. 3d 42, 25 OBR 115, 495 N.E. 2d 462. 

Reasonable certainty as to the amount of damages is required, which is that degree of 

certainty of which the nature of the case admits. Bemmes v. Pub. Emp. Retirement 

Sys. Of Ohio (1995), 102 Ohio App. 3d 782, 658 N.E. 2d 31. 

{¶ 18} 13) Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $125.00. 

{¶ 19} 14) The $25.00 filing fee may be reimbursed as compensable costs 

pursuant to R.C. 2335.19. See Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction (1990), 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19, 587 N.E. 2d 990. 

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 

ANDRE M. YEAGER 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

RICHLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-05099-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 plaintiff in the amount of $150.00, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are 

assessed against defendant. 
 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Andre M. Yeager Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

1334 Elwood Department of Rehabilitation 

East Cleveland, Ohio 44112 and Correction 

 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

RDK/laa 

11/3 

Filed 11/23/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 2/18/11