Court Opinion

ID: 9882975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:22:42.961942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:20.531613
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Sparks v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2023-Ohio-3164.]

                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

                                                        Case No. 2023-00167AD
 BRYAN SPARKS
                                                        Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver
         Plaintiff
                                                        MEMORANDUM DECISION
         v.

 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
 REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION

         Defendant

        {¶1}    Bryan Sparks (“plaintiff”), an inmate, filed a complaint against defendant,
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”). Plaintiff related on July 21,
2022, at defendant’s Marion Correctional Institution, plaintiff was placed into segregation
and plaintiff’s personal property was packed up. Plaintiff was released and went to
retrieve the property but discovered most of it was missing. ODRC conducted an internal
investigation into the matter and determined that plaintiff’s allegations that the property
was not properly stored and left unattended, were substantially true. ODRC offered
plaintiff $126.00 and a new TV. Plaintiff rejected this offer. Plaintiff seeks the full value
of the property and equitable relief by allowing plaintiff to repurchase and possess items
that plaintiff had been allowed to possess but are now considered contraband. Plaintiff
alleges the following items were lost: one (1) ClearTunes TV, one (1) TV accessories kit,
four (4) clothes hangers, one (1) Conair beard and moustache trimmer, one (1) digital
alarm clock, one (1) six foot audio cable, one (1) “Y” adapter audio cord, one (1) 8” clear
fan, one (1) pair of micro mesh shorts, one (1) blank vending card, one (1) $50 value
vending card with a remaining balance of $34.85, one (1) pair of cross-strap shower
shoes, one (1) bowl with lid, one (1) 64 oz. clear mug, one (1) bag of potato chips, forty
(40) packs of ramen noodles, four (4) bags of pasta shells, one (1) pickle, two (2)
packages of cookies, three (3) packages of drink mix, one (1) Kool Operator Jr. fan, one
(1) 8-outlet power strip/surge protector, one (1) pair of Timberland boots, one (1) zip-up
hoodie, one (1) 3-pack of black Nike no-show socks, one (1) 3-pack of white Nike no-
Case No. 2023-00167AD                         -2-               MEMORANDUM DECISION

show socks, one (1) personal pillow, one (1) 3-pack of A-shirts, one (1) pair of green
shorts, one (1) pair of navy shorts, one (1) pair of Reebok shoes, one (1) pair of
Skullcandy earbuds, one (1) 20” silver rope chain, one (1) Equity alarm clock, one (1) pair
of Nike shoes, two (2) green Bic pens, two (2) purple Bic pens, one (1) pencil sharpener,
one (1) 12ct. pack of colored pencils, one (1) 12ct. pack of metallic pencils, one (1) pack
of neon colored pencils, one (1) 6” fluff comb, one (1) pair of sunglasses, one (1) pair of
black oval shoelaces, six (6) pairs of white quarter socks, one (1) Blick sketch board, one
(1) 8ct. pack of ballpoint pens, one (1) navy baseball cap, one (1) spool of dark silver
thread, one (1) spool of dark gold thread, one (1) 18ct. pack of metallic floss, two (2)
Sharpie chisel tip markers, one (1) Blick glue stick, one (1) bottle of Elmer’s wood glue,
two (2) pairs of Velvet Touch scissors, and one (1) wooden box with sewing contents.
       {¶2}   Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $935.59. Plaintiff was not required
to submit the $25.00 filing fee.
       {¶3}   Defendant submitted an investigation report admitting negligence.
However, defendant contests the amount claimed by plaintiff and argues that plaintiff has
not proven ownership of all the claimed property lost, and that the property he has proven
is subject to depreciation.
       {¶4}   Plaintiff filed a response to the investigation report, wherein he reasserts
the initial claims and argues that he should be entitled to the full value of the property, not
the depreciated value.
       {¶5}   As an initial matter, on May 25, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiff argues that defendant failed to timely file its investigation report and
judgment should therefore be rendered on plaintiff’s behalf.
       {¶6}   Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment rests on defendant’s failure to
timely submit the investigation report, thus the court construes it to be a motion for default
judgment. Civ.R. 55(D) in pertinent part states: “No judgment by default shall be entered
against this state * * * or agency * * * unless the claimant establishes his claim * * * by
evidence satisfactory to the court.”
       {¶7}   “A default judgment against the state may not be granted solely on
procedural errors made by the defendant.” Chasteen v. Dayton Corr. Inst., No. 2011-
Case No. 2023-00167AD                         -3-               MEMORANDUM DECISION

01721-AD, aff’d jud (2011).       Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
DENIED.
       {¶8}     To prevail in a claim for negligence, plaintiff must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed plaintiff a duty, that defendant
breached that duty, and that defendant’s breach proximately caused plaintiff’s damages.
Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶
8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77, 472 N.E.2d 707
(1984).
       {¶9}     Whether a duty exists is a question of law to be decided by the court, while
breach of such duty is a question of fact. Snay v. Burr, 167 Ohio St.3d, 2021-Ohio-4113,
189 N.E.3d 758 ¶ 14, citing Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318, 544 N.E.2d 265
(1989).
       {¶10} “[Defendant] does not have the liability of an insurer (i.e., is not liable without
fault) with respect to inmate property, but it does have the duty to make reasonable
attempts to protect such property. When prison authorities obtain possession of an
inmate’s property, a bailment relationship arises between the correctional facility and the
inmate. By virtue of this relationship, [defendant] must exercise ordinary care in handling
and storing an inmate’s property. However, a correctional institution cannot be held liable
for the loss of contraband property that an inmate has no right to possess.” (Internal
citations omitted.) Triplett v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-1296,
2007-Ohio-2526, ¶ 7.
       {¶11} This court has consistently held that “[i]f property is lost or stolen while in
defendant’s possession, it is presumed, without evidence to the contrary, defendant failed
to exercise ordinary care.” Internal citations omitted. Velez v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. &
Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2019-00053-AD, 2020-Ohio-2932, ¶ 6. However, “[p]laintiff’s failure
to prove delivery of [the property] to defendant constitutes a failure to show imposition of
a legal bailment duty on the part of defendant in respect to lost property.” Internal citations
omitted.      Jones v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2005-09341-AD, 2006-
Ohio-365, ¶ 10. Plaintiff cannot recover for property loss when he fails to produce
sufficient evidence to establish that defendant actually assumed control over the property.
Case No. 2023-00167AD                         -4-               MEMORANDUM DECISION

Whiteside v. Orient Corr. Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2002-05751, 2005-Ohio-4455; obj. overruled,
2005-Ohio-5068.
       {¶12} Plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
plaintiff suffered a loss and that this loss was proximately caused by defendant’s
negligence. Coffman v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 10th Dist. Franklin Co. No. 09AP-447, 2009-
Ohio-5859, ¶ 9.
       {¶13} Plaintiff must produce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the
conclusion that defendant’s conduct is more likely a substantial factor in bringing about
the harm. Parks v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 1985-01546-AD (1985).
       {¶14} In addition, prison regulations, including those contained in the Ohio
Administrative Code (“OAC”), “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, 683 N.E.2d 1139 (1997), citing Sandlin v. Conner,
515 U.S. 472, 481-482, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1995). 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. & Corr., 67 Ohio Misc.2d 1, 3, 643 N.E.2d
1182 (10th Dist. 1993).      Accordingly, to the extent that plaintiff alleges that ODRC
somehow violated internal prison regulations and the OAC, plaintiff fails to state a claim
for relief. See Sharp v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2008- 02410-AD,
2008-Ohio-7064, ¶ 5.
       {¶15} To recover against a defendant in a tort action, plaintiff must produce
evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for sustaining plaintiff’s claim. If plaintiff’s
evidence furnishes a basis for only a guess, among different possibilities, as to any
essential issue in the case, plaintiff fails to sustain the burden as to such issue. Landon
v. Lee Motors, Inc., 161 Ohio St. 82, 118 N.E.2d 147 (1954).
       {¶16} The credibility of witnesses and the weight attributable to their testimony are
primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d
212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. The court is free to believe or disbelieve, all
or any part of each witness’ testimony. State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61, 197 N.E.2d 548
(1964). The court finds plaintiff’s statement persuasive.
Case No. 2023-00167AD                                 -5-                  MEMORANDUM DECISION

        {¶17} Defendant admits liability in this matter, acknowledging negligent acts which
resulted in plaintiff’s property being lost and stolen.
        {¶18} The only issue left is damages. Damage assessment is a matter within the
function of the trier of fact. Litchfield v. Morris, 25 Ohio App.3d 42, 495 N.E.2d 462 (10th
Dist. 1985). As the trier of fact, this court has the power to award reasonable damages
based on evidence presented. Sims v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 61 Ohio Misc.2d 239, 577
N.E.2d 160 (Ct. of Cl. 1988).
        {¶19} Reasonable certainty as to the amount of damages is required, which is that
degree of certainty to which the nature of the case admits. Bemmes v. Pub. Emp.
Retirement Sys. of Ohio, 102 Ohio App.3d 782, 658 N.E.2d 31 (12th Dist. 1995). In a
situation where damage assessment for personal property destruction or loss based on
market value is essentially indeterminable, a damage determination may be based on the
standard value of the property to the owner. This determination considers such factors
as value to the owner, original cost, replacement cost, salvage value, and fair market
value at the time of the loss. Cooper v. Feeney, 34 Ohio App.3d 282, 518 N.E.2d 46
(12th Dist. 1986).
        {¶20} The court finds that plaintiff has not proven ownership and/or provided
receipts of the clothes hangers, beard trimmer, audio cable, Y adapter audio cord, 8” fan,
blank vending card, $50.00 value vending card with a remaining balance of $34.85, bowl
with lid, 64oz. mug, Kool Operator Jr. fan, 8-outlet power strip/surge protector, personal
pillow, or the wooden box with sewing contents. Plaintiff has demonstrated ownership
and provided receipts for all other items.
        {¶21} The TV and TV accessories are depreciable items. This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. See
Weaver v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2011-10134-AD (2012); and
Woodward v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2016-00267-AD (2016); and
Bonnette v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2017-00187-AD (2018).1
        {¶22} Plaintiff purchased the ClearTunes TV and accessories for $245.69 and
owned them for roughly two years. At a depreciated value of 8% of replacement cost per

1 The court will utilize the depreciation guide found at www.claimspages.com to determine which items

are subject to depreciation, their depreciation rate, and their current value.
Case No. 2023-00167AD                       -6-               MEMORANDUM DECISION

year, the ClearTunes TV and accessories are valued at $206.38. Thus, the court finds
the damages for the ClearTunes TV and accessories are $206.38.
       {¶23} The digital alarm clock is a depreciable item. This court has the authority
to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id. Plaintiff
purchased the digital alarm clock for $17.17 and owned it for roughly one year. At a
depreciation rate of 10% of replacement cost per year, the digital alarm clock is valued at
$15.45. Thus, the court finds the damages for the digital alarm clock are $15.45.
       {¶24} The pair of micro mesh shorts is a depreciable item. This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Plaintiff purchased the micro mesh shorts for $10.95 and owned them for roughly one
year. At a depreciation rate of 33% of replacement cost per year, the micro mesh shorts
are valued at $7.33. Thus, the court finds the damages for the pair of micro mesh shorts
are $7.33.
       {¶25} The pair of shower shoes is not a depreciable item. This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Plaintiff purchased the shower shoes for $0.93. Thus, the court finds the damages for
the shower shoes are $0.93.
       {¶26} According to ODRC policy, inmates are only allowed to keep two weeks’
worth of commissary items. 61-PRP-01 V1.A7 states: “Incarcerated individuals may be
required to provide proof of ownership for any item of their personal property at any time.”
Plaintiff purchased various commissary items on July 20, 2022, a day before the incident,
totaling $21.97. As the commissary items were purchased within the two-week period
allowed by ODRC policy, the court finds the damages for the various commissary items
are $21.97.
       {¶27} The 3-pack of A-Shirts is a depreciable item. This court has the authority
to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id. Plaintiff
purchased the 3-pack of A-Shirts for $12.95 and owned them for roughly one year. At a
depreciation rate of 33% of replacement cost per year, the 3-pack of A-Shirts is valued at
$8.68. Thus, the court finds the damages for the 3-pack of A-Shirts are $8.68.
       {¶28} The pair of micro mesh shorts is a depreciable item. This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Case No. 2023-00167AD                       -7-               MEMORANDUM DECISION

Plaintiff purchased the micro mesh shorts for $10.95 and owned them for roughly one
year. At a depreciation rate of 33% of replacement cost per year, the micro mesh shorts
are valued at $7.33. Thus, the court finds the damages for the pair of micro mesh shorts
are $7.33.
       {¶29} The pair of green shorts is a depreciable item. This court has the authority
to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id. Plaintiff
purchased the pair of green shorts for $13.95 and owned them for roughly one year. At
a depreciation rate of 33% of replacement cost per year, the pair of green shorts is valued
at $9.35. Thus, the court finds the damages for the pair of green shorts are $9.35.
       {¶30} The pair of navy shorts is a depreciable item. This court has the authority
to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id. Plaintiff
purchased the pair of navy shorts for $13.95 and owned them for roughly one year. At a
depreciation rate of 33% of replacement cost per year, the pair of navy shorts is valued
at $9.35. Thus, the court finds the damages for the pair of navy shorts are $9.35.
       {¶31} The pair of Reebok shoes is a depreciable item. This court has the authority
to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id. Plaintiff
purchased the pair of Reebok shoes for $59.95 and owned them for roughly one year. At
a depreciation rate of 33% of replacement cost per year, the pair of Reebok shoes is
valued at $40.17. Thus, the court finds the damages for the pair of Reebok shoes are
$40.17.
       {¶32} The pair of Skullcandy earbuds is a depreciable item. This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Plaintiff purchased the pair of Skullcandy earbuds for $11.95 and owned them for roughly
one year. At a depreciation rate of 20% of replacement cost per year, the pair of
Skullcandy earbuds is valued at $9.56. Thus, the court finds the damages for the pair of
Skullcandy earbuds are $9.56.
       {¶33} The 20” sterling silver rope chain is a depreciable item. This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Plaintiff purchased the 20” sterling silver rope chain for $9.95 and owned it for roughly
one year. At a depreciation rate of 5% of replacement cost per year, the 20” sterling silver
Case No. 2023-00167AD                       -8-               MEMORANDUM DECISION

rope chain is valued at $9.45. Thus, the court finds the damages for the 20” sterling silver
rope chain are $9.45.
       {¶34} The Equity alarm clock is a depreciable item. This court has the authority
to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id. Plaintiff
purchased the Equity alarm clock for $15.95 and owned it for roughly one year. At a
depreciation rate of 10% of replacement cost per year, the Equity alarm clock is valued
at $14.36. Thus, the court finds the damages for the Equity alarm clock are $14.36.
       {¶35} The pair of Nike shoes is a depreciable item. This court has the authority
to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id. Plaintiff
purchased the pair of Nike shoes for $69.90 and owned them for roughly one year. At a
depreciation rate of 33% of replacement cost per year, the pair of Nike shoes is valued at
$46.83. Thus, the court finds the damages for the pair of Nike shoes are $46.83.
       {¶36} The green Bic pens are not depreciable items. This court has the authority
to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id. Plaintiff
purchased the green Bic pens for $0.80. Thus, the court finds the damages for the green
Bic pens are $0.80.
       {¶37} The purple Bic pens are not depreciable items. This court has the authority
to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id. Plaintiff
purchased the purple Bic pens for $0.80. Thus, the court finds the damages for the purple
Bic pens are $0.80.
       {¶38} The pencil sharpener is not a depreciable item. This court has the authority
to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id. Plaintiff
purchased the pencil sharpener for $1.10. Thus, the court finds the damages for the
pencil sharpener are $1.10.
       {¶39} The 12ct. of colored pencils is not a depreciable item. This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Plaintiff purchased the 12ct. of colored pencils for $2.30. Thus, the court finds the
damages for the 12ct. of colored pencils are $2.30.
       {¶40} The 12ct. of metallic pencils is not a depreciable item. This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Case No. 2023-00167AD                      -9-              MEMORANDUM DECISION

Plaintiff purchased the 12ct. of metallic pencils for $2.80. Thus, the court finds the
damages for the 12ct. of colored pencils are $2.80.
      {¶41} Neon-colored pencils are not a depreciable item.         This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Plaintiff purchased the neon-colored pencils for $2.90. Thus, the court finds the damages
for the neon-colored pencils are $2.90.
      {¶42} The 6” fluff comb is a depreciable item. This court has the authority to
determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question.         Id.   Plaintiff
purchased the 6” fluff comb for $1.10 and owned it for roughly one year. At a depreciation
rate of 50% of replacement cost per year, the 6” fluff comb is valued at $0.55. Thus, the
court finds the damages for the 6” fluff comb are $0.55.
      {¶43} The sunglasses are a depreciable item. This court has the authority to
determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question.         Id.   Plaintiff
purchased the sunglasses for $4.90 and owned them for roughly one year.               At a
depreciation rate of 10% of replacement cost per year, the sunglasses are valued at
$4.41. Thus, the court finds the damages for the sunglasses are $4.41.
      {¶44} Shoelaces are not a depreciable item. This court has the authority to
determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question.         Id.   Plaintiff
purchased the shoelaces for $1.90. Thus, the court finds the damages for the shoelaces
are $1.90.
      {¶45} The 6-pack of white quarter socks is a depreciable item. This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Plaintiff purchased the 6-pack of white quarter socks for $7.90 and owned them for
roughly one year. At a depreciation rate of 33% of replacement cost per year, the 6-pack
of white quarter socks is valued at $5.29. Thus, the court finds the damages for the 6-
pack of white quarter socks are $5.29.
      {¶46} The Blick sketch board is a depreciable item. This court has the authority
to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id. Plaintiff
purchased the Blick sketch board for $8.80 and owned it for roughly two years. At a
depreciation rate of 5% of replacement cost per year, the Blick sketch board is valued at
$7.92. Thus, the court finds the damages for the Blick sketch board are $7.92.
Case No. 2023-00167AD                      -10-              MEMORANDUM DECISION

       {¶47} The 8ct. ballpoint pen pack is not a depreciable item. This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Plaintiff purchased the 8ct. ballpoint pen pack for $1.50.     Thus, the court finds the
damages for the 8ct. ballpoint pen pack are $1.50.
       {¶48} The navy baseball hat is a depreciable item. This court has the authority to
determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question.          Id.   Plaintiff
purchased the navy baseball hat for $5.90 and owned it for roughly two years. At a
depreciation rate of 20% of replacement cost per year, the navy baseball hat is valued at
$3.54. Thus, the court finds the damages for the navy baseball hat are $3.54.
       {¶49} The dark silver spool of thread is not a depreciable item. This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Plaintiff purchased the dark silver spool of thread for $3.99. Thus, the court finds the
damages for the dark silver spool of thread are $3.99.
       {¶50} The dark gold spool of thread is not a depreciable item. This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Plaintiff purchased the dark gold spool of thread for $3.99. Thus, the court finds the
damages for the dark gold spool of thread are $3.99.
       {¶51} The 18-pack of metallic floss is not a depreciable item. This court has the
authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Plaintiff purchased the 18-pack of metallic floss for $9.99. Thus, the court finds the
damages for the 18-pack of metallic floss are $9.99.
       {¶52} The two Sharpie chisel tip markers are not depreciable items. This court
has the authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question.
Id. Plaintiff purchased the Sharpie chisel tip markers for $2.54. Thus, the court finds the
damages for the Sharpie chisel tip markers are $2.54.
       {¶53} The Blick glue stick is not a depreciable item. This court has the authority
to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id. Plaintiff
purchased the Blick glue stick for $1.18. Thus, the court finds the damages for the Blick
glue stick are $1.18.
       {¶54} The bottle of Elmer’s wood glue is not a depreciable item. This court has
the authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question. Id.
Case No. 2023-00167AD                                -11-                  MEMORANDUM DECISION

Plaintiff purchased the bottle of Elmer’s wood glue for $3.11. Thus, the court finds the
damages for the bottle of Elmer’s wood glue are $3.11.
        {¶55} The two pairs of Velvet Touch scissors are not depreciable items. This court
has the authority to determine depreciation based on the age of the property in question.
Id. Plaintiff purchased the Velvet Touch scissors for $6.82. Thus, the court finds the
damages for the two pairs of Velvet Touch scissors are $6.82.
        {¶56} Additionally, plaintiff argues that the Timberland boots, zip-up hoodie, the
black and white Nike no-show socks, and pillow (which the court has found he has not
proven ownership of) are now considered contraband, but that plaintiff was allowed to
possess them before the new prison policies were implemented.2 As stated previously,
a correctional institution cannot be held liable for the loss of contraband property that an
inmate has no right to possess. Triplett v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 10th Dist. Franklin No.
06AP-1296, 2007-Ohio-2526, ¶ 7. Inasmuch as these three items are now considered
contraband, plaintiff is not entitled to damages for these items. Moreover, even if they
were not contraband, due to depreciation, these items have no monetary value. The pair
of Timberland boots is a depreciable item. Plaintiff purchased the Timberland boots for
$79.90 and owned them for roughly five years.                      At a depreciation rate of 50% of
replacement cost per year, the Timberland boots are valued at $0.00. Thus, the court
finds the damages for the pair of Timberland boots are $0.00.
        {¶57} The zip-up hoodie is a depreciable item. Plaintiff purchased the zip-up
hoodie for $27.00 and owned it for roughly five years. At a depreciation rate of 33% of
replacement cost per year, the zip-up hoodie is valued at $0.00. Thus, the court finds the
damages for the zip-up hoodie are $0.00.
        {¶58} The black and white Nike no-show socks are depreciable items. Plaintiff
purchased the socks for $26.00 and owned them for roughly five years. At a depreciation
rate of 33% of replacement cost per year, the socks are valued at $0.00. Thus, the court
finds the damages for the black and white no-show socks are $0.00.
        {¶59} Plaintiff argues that even though these items are contraband, the court
should order defendant to allow plaintiff to repurchase these items.

2 The court has already found that plaintiff failed to prove ownership and/or a receipt for the pillow.

Therefore, the pillow shall not be addressed further.
Case No. 2023-00167AD                        -12-              MEMORANDUM DECISION

         {¶60} The Court of Claims’ “jurisdiction extends over actions that also include a
claim for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or other equitable relief, as long as the
ancillary claim or claims arise out of the same circumstances that give rise to the claim
for money damages.” R.C. 2743.03(A)(2); Meccon, Inc. v. Univ. of Akron, 126 Ohio St.3d
231, 2010-Ohio-3297, ¶ 19.; State ex rel. Blackwell v. Crawford, 106 Ohio St.3d 447,
2005-Ohio-5124, ¶ 20. Great W. Cas. Co. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 10th Dist. No.
14AP-524, 2015- Ohio-1555, ¶ 11.           Additionally, inmate complaints regarding the
conditions of confinement are treated as claims arising under Section 1983, Title 43,
United States Code. State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten, 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 91, 637 N.E.2d
306 (1994). To the extent the complaint can be construed as raising a challenge to the
conditions of confinement, i.e., the items plaintiff is allowed to possess, such a claim is
not actionable in the Court of Claims. Payne v. Mohr, No. 2:11-CV-00831 (S.D. Ohio Oct.
6, 2011); Thompson v. S. State Community College, 10th Dist. No. 89AP-114 (June 15,
1989); Burkey v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 38 Ohio App.3d 170, 528 N.E.2d 607 (10th Dist.
1988).
         {¶61} It is well settled that the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to hear
constitutional claims brought against the state. Bleicher v. Univ. of Cincinnati College of
Medicine, 78 Ohio App.3d 302, 604 N.E.2d 783 (10th Dist. 1992). Furthermore, it is a
well-established principle of law that the state of Ohio is not a “person” within the meaning
of Section 1983, Title 42, U.S. Code; therefore, such actions cannot be brought against
the state. White v. Chillicothe Corr. Inst., 10th Dist. No. 92AP-1230 (December 29, 1992).
         {¶62} It is clear from the complaint that plaintiff sought to gain an exception to
contraband policies for defendant’s violations of internal regulations and procedures.
Accordingly, because plaintiff’s sought relief is based on what he is not allowed to own or
purchase, it should be treated as a condition of confinement claim. As such, plaintiff’s
requested exemption from prison regulations and policies is not actionable in this court.
Moreover, the court has found that the contraband items have no monetary value.
Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to prove that he is entitled to damages for these items.
         {¶63} For the foregoing reasons, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the
amount of $474.57.
Case No. 2023-00167AD                       -13-              MEMORANDUM DECISION

 BRYAN SPARKS                                  Case No. 2023-00167AD

          Plaintiff                            Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver

          v.                                   ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE
                                               DETERMINATION
 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
 REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION

          Defendant

         {¶64} 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 $474.57. Plaintiff’s May 25, 2023 motion is DENIED.
Court costs are assessed against defendant.

                                            HOLLY TRUE SHAVER
                                            Deputy Clerk
Filed 8/2/23
Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/7/23