Court Opinion

ID: 9882977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:22:44.40526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:15.301465
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Carter v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2023-Ohio-3163.]

                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 EDWARD C. CARTER                                      Case No. 2023-00046AD

          Plaintiff                                    Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver

          v.                                           MEMORANDUM DECISION

 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
 REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION

          Defendant

        {¶1}     Edward Carter (“plaintiff”), an inmate, filed a complaint against defendant,
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”).                    Plaintiff related on
November 9, 2022, at defendant’s Warren Correctional Institution (“WCI”), his cellmate
stole several of his personal property items including: a lamp, a JP5 Player cord, a fan, a
six-foot coaxial cable, Conair hair clippers, a thermal set, a sweatsuit, a pair of white
Adidas shoes, a Cleartunes remote, a power strip, a pair of Pro25 headphones, and gym
shorts.
        {¶2}     Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $2,500.00, including damages for
mental and emotional anguish and punitive damages. Plaintiff was not required to submit
the $25.00 filing fee.
        {¶3}     On May 22, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion titled “Summary Judgment
Request”. In his motion, plaintiff argued that because ODRC failed to file its investigation
report in a timely manner, the court should “rule in ‘default’ in accordance to Ohio Revise
Code 2743.12.” The court will construe this motion as a motion for default judgment. On
May 25, 2023, ODRC filed its investigation report.                  Pursuant to R.C. 2743.10(B),
defendant is required to submit the investigation report within 60 days from the receipt of
the form complaint. However, Civ.R. 55(D) states in pertinent part, “[n]o judgment by
default shall be entered against this state * * * or agency * * * unless the claimant
establishes his claim * * * by evidence satisfactory to the court.” A default judgment
Case No. 2023-00046AD                           -2-                MEMORANDUM DECISION

against the state may not be granted solely on procedural errors made by the defendant.
Upon review, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
         {¶4}   Defendant submitted an investigation report denying liability in this matter.
ODRC stated that on November 10, 2022, plaintiff reported the theft of his property by his
new cellmate. Defendant asserted that WCI staff conducted an investigation which
determined that the theft occurred because plaintiff left his belongings unsecured. ODRC
stated that there was no evidence of WCI staff straying from the appropriate procedures
with regard to plaintiff’s property. Finally, defendant asserted that it cannot be held liable
for the theft because it was committed by another incarcerated person who was not an
agent of defendant.
         {¶5}   Plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s investigation report reasserting his
claim.
         {¶6}   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).
         {¶7}   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).
         {¶8}   “[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
Case No. 2023-00046AD                         -3-               MEMORANDUM DECISION

citations omitted.) Triplett v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-1296,
2007-Ohio-2526, ¶ 7.
       {¶9}   If property is lost or stolen while in defendant’s possession, it is presumed,
without evidence to the contrary, that defendant failed to exercise ordinary care. Merrick
v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., Ct. of Cl. 85-05029-AD (1985); Cox v. S. Ohio Training
Ctr., Ct. of Cl. No. 1984-03740-AD (1986). Further, plaintiff’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. Prunty v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and
Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 1986-02821-AD (1987). Plaintiff cannot recover for property loss
when plaintiff fails to produce sufficient evidence to establish that defendant actually
assumed control over the property. Whiteside v. Orient Corr. Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2002-
05751, 2005-Ohio-4455; obj. overruled, 2005-Ohio-5068.
       {¶10} 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. Barnum v. Ohio State Univ., Ct. of Cl. No. 1976-0368-AD (1977).
       {¶11} 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. and Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 1985-01546-AD (1985).
       {¶12} 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). Moreover, 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., 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.
Case No. 2023-00046AD                       -4-               MEMORANDUM DECISION

       {¶13} 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).
       {¶14} 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 not particularly persuasive.
       {¶15} 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. S.
Ohio Corr. Facility, Ct. of Cl. No. 78-0217-AD (1978).
       {¶16} Here, plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant was in possession of his
property at the time of loss, that the inmate who stole his property was an agent of
defendant, or that defendant was negligent. Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of
defendant.

 EDWARD C. CARTER                             Case No. 2023-00046AD

       Plaintiff                              Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver

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

       Defendant
Case No. 2023-00046AD                        -5-              MEMORANDUM DECISION

         {¶17} 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.

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