Opinion

Gross v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility

  • 2011 Ohio 3850
Court
Ohio Court of Claims
Filed
Apr 21, 2011
Status
Published
On the bench
Borchert
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 32.2%

The opinion

[Cite as Gross v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 2011-Ohio-3850.]

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

TONY R. GROSS

Plaintiff

V.

SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.

Defendants

Case No. 2010-08675-AD

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT

{¶ 1} On or about May 20, 2009, plaintiff, Tony R. Gross, an inmate formerly

incarcerated at defendant, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility ("SOCF"), was

transferred from the SOCF general population to a segregation unit. Plaintiff's personal

property was packed and delivered into the custody of SOCF staff incident to this

transfer.

{¶ 2} On or about July 22, 2009, plaintiff was released from segregation and his

property was again inventoried prior to his transfer from SOCF to the Toledo

Correctional Institution (ToCI). Plaintiff asserted that after he regained possession of

his property the following items were missing: a Timex watch, a necklace, and three art

boards. In addition, plaintiff alleges his radio and dictionary were damaged (broken

volume control knob, torn cover). Plaintiff submitted a copy of the pack-up inventory

compiled on May 20, 2009. Items listed relevant to this claim are a watch, a necklace,

three drawing boards, and a radio. Plaintiff maintained all of the listed property was in

good working order before it was packed and delivered into the custody of SOCF

personnel. Plaintiff contended his radio and dictionary were damaged at some time

during the transport to ToCI. Plaintiff claimed additional property items (a chord finder,

a stamp magnifier, an Allman Brothers CD, and a TV antenna) were confiscated by

ToCI staff as possible contraband and were not returned to him. Plaintiff submitted a

copy of an inventory compiled by SOCF personnel on July 22, 2009. Items relevant to

this claim listed on the inventory are a radio, a CD, and a TV antenna. Plaintiff

submitted a copy of an inventory completed by ToCI personnel on July 23, 2009. The

following items claimed as missing are listed on this inventory: radio, CD, magnifier,

chord finder, and TV antenna.

{¶ 3} Plaintiff asserted ToCI staff confiscated his guitar chord finder and placed

it in storage pending completion of an internal policy regarding possession of musical

property by inmates in protective custody. According to plaintiff, the chord finder was

subsequently lost or stolen while in the custody of ToCI staff.

{¶ 4} Finally, plaintiff claimed ToCI staff confiscated a stamp magnifier, an

Allman Brothers CD, and a TV antenna as contraband, and that such items were not

returned to him. Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $ 204.00,

the total replacement cost of the property claimed. The filing fee was paid.

{¶ 5} Plaintiff submitted additional information documenting his decision to give

the broken radio to another inmate rather than to discard it in the trash. According to

plaintiff, the radio was subsequently confiscated from the other inmate and designated

as contraband. Plaintiff sought to have the damaged radio returned to him, to no avail.

{¶ 6} Defendant denied any liability and asserted plaintiff’s copy of the May 20,

2010 inventory is illegible. In addition, defendant was unable to locate its copy of the

same inventory. Defendant maintained plaintiff signed both the July 22, 2009 inventory

compiled at SOCF acknowledging the items listed constituted a complete and accurate

inventory of all his property, and the subsequent receipt prepared by ToCI staff

indicating that plaintiff received all of the items transferred from SOCF listed on the July

22, 2009 inventory. Defendant contended plaintiff failed to prove the radio was

damaged during transport or while under defendant’s control. Finally, defendant stated

plaintiff’s chord finder, Allman Brothers CD, magnifier, and TV antenna were returned to

him.

{¶ 7} Plaintiff filed a response wherein he acknowledged receipt of the chord

finder and the stamp magnifier in November 2010. On November 12, 2010, defendant

filed a motion to supplement the record wherein defendant explained that a bag

containing plaintiff’s chord finder, stamp magnifier and a clip-on lamp had apparently

fallen behind a cabinet and that the recently located property had been returned to

plaintiff. In addition, an institutional inspector’s report states plaintiff’s antenna and

Allman Brothers CD were confiscated as contraband because the antenna was altered

and plaintiff failed to provide a receipt proving ownership of the CD.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

{¶ 8} 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.

{¶ 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} 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, 788 N.E. 2d 1088, ¶8 citing Menifee v. Ohio

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

{¶ 11} “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; and Mussivand v.

David (1989), 45 Ohio St. 3d 314, 318, 544 N.E. 2d 265.

{¶ 12} 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.

{¶ 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

plaintiff’s assertions particular persuasive in regard to the fact he was the rightful owner

of all of the confiscated property.

{¶ 14} Plaintiff has no right to pursue a claim for destroyed property in which

he cannot prove any right of ownership. DeLong v. Department of Rehabilitation and

Correction (1988), 88-06000-AD. Defendant cannot be held liable for contraband

property that plaintiff has no right to possess. Beaverson v. Department of

Rehabilitation and Correction (1988), 87-02540-AD; Radford v. Department of

Rehabilitation and Correction (1985), 84-09071.

{¶ 15} An inmate maintains no right of ownership in property which is

impermissibly altered and therefore, has no right to recovery when the altered property

is lost or destroyed. Watley v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Ct. of

Cl. No. 2005-05183-AD, jud, 2005-Ohio-4320; Watson v. Ohio State Penitentiary, Ct. of

Cl. No. 2007-05229-AD, 2008-Ohio-2848.

{¶ 16} Evidence has shown some confiscated property was altered and

consequently was considered impermissible. No recovery can be had for the loss or

destruction of impermissible altered property. See Kemp v. Ohio State Penitentiary, Ct.

of Cl. No. 2006-02587-AD, 2006-Ohio-7247.

{¶ 17} Plaintiff has failed to show any causal connection between any

damage to the radio or the dictionary and any breach of 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. In addition, plaintiff, by giving

the radio to another inmate, effectively relinquished all ownership rights in the property.

See Johnson v. Ohio Reformatory for Women, Ct. of Cl. No. 2004-01087-AD, 2004-

Ohio-4818.

{¶ 18} Negligence on the part of defendant has been shown in respect to a

portion of the property claimed. Baisden v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1977),

76-0617-AD. Negligence on the part of defendant has been shown in respect to the

issue of protecting plaintiff’s property after he was transferred to segregation on May 20,

2009. Billups v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2001), 2000-10634-AD.

Plaintiff has offered sufficient proof to establish defendant is liable for the loss of a

watch, necklace, and three art boards.

{¶ 19} The assessment of damages is a matter within the province of the trier

of fact. Litchfield v. Morris (1985), 25 Ohio App. 3d 42, 25 OBR 115, 495 N.E. 2d 462.

{¶ 20} 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.

{¶ 21} Defendant is liable to plaintiff for property loss in the amount of $45.00,

the fair market value of the watch, necklace, and art boards, plus the $25.00 filing fee

which 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.

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

TONY R. GROSS

Plaintiff

v.

SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.

Defendants

Case No. 2010-08675-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 $70.00, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are

assessed against defendant.

DANIEL R. BORCHERT

Deputy Clerk

Entry cc:

Tony R. Gross, #A336-748 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel

P.O. Box 80033 Department of Rehabilitation

2001 E. Central Avenue and Correction

Toledo, Ohio 43608 770 West Broad Street

Columbus, Ohio 43222

SJM/laa

3/30

Filed 4/21/11

Sent to S.C. reporter 8/5/11

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.