Wallace v. Grafton Corr. Inst

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Wallace v. Grafton Corr. Inst, 2009-Ohio-5741.] 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 RONNIE LEE WALLACE Plaintiff v. GRAFTON CORRECTION INSTITUTION Defendant Case No. 2009-01743-AD Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert MEMORANDUM DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) Plaintiff, Ronnie Lee Wallace, an inmate incarcerated at defendant, Grafton Correctional Institution ( GCI ), related his locker box was broken into on August 12, 2008 and several property items were stolen. According to plaintiff, the property stolen included food items, tobacco products, and laundry detergent. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff asserted his property was stolen as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of defendant in failing to give him access to an adequate locking device to secure his property in his locker box. Plaintiff observed the locks available are so cheaply made (it) can t secure your property. Furthermore, plaintiff claimed GCI staff did not make timely security rounds on August 12, 2008 to make an adequate effort to prevent or inhibit theft attempts. Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $69.28, the replacement cost of the claimed stolen property. The filing fee was paid. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant denied GCI staff failed to provide adequate security that resulted in the theft of plaintiff s property. Defendant acknowledged plaintiff reported the theft of his property and an immediate search was conducted. However, none of plaintiff s property items were recovered. Defendant acknowledged a theft report was filed, but the report could not be located. Defendant asserted plaintiff s cellmate left their cell door unlocked and consequently, allowed access to the cell which resulted in the theft of property from plaintiff s locker box. Defendant denied any GCI personnel breached any duty of care owed to plaintiff in respect to protecting his property. Plaintiff admitted in a grievance that his cellmate refuses to lock the door to their cell. {¶ 4} 4) Plaintiff filed a response insisting his property was stolen as a proximate cause of defendant s negligence in failing to provide him access to a heavy duty lock. Additionally, plaintiff reasserted the GCI officer who was charged with making periodic rounds of the housing pod was outside the pod smoking a cigarette for approximately a twenty minute period at the time the theft occurred. Plaintiff contended the GCI officer violated departmental policy by leaving his post to smoke without requesting a relief guard to man his post during his absence. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 5} 1) 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. {¶ 6} 2) 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. {¶ 7} 3) 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. {¶ 8} 4) Plaintiff must produce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion 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} 5) 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. {¶ 10} 6) 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} 7) 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, 798 N.E. 2d 1121, ¶41, citing Miller v. Paulson (1994), 97 Ohio App. 3d 217, 221, 646 N.E. 2d 521; Mussivand v. David (1989), 45 Ohio St. 3d 314, 318, 544 N.E. 2d 265. {¶ 12} 8) The allegation that a theft may have occurred is insufficient to show defendant s negligence. Williams v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 8307091-AD; Custom v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1985), 84-02425. Plaintiff must show defendant breached a duty of ordinary or reasonable care. Williams. {¶ 13} 9) Defendant is not responsible for actions of other 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; Melson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2003), Ct. of Cl. No. 2003-04236-AD, 2003-Ohio-3615; Jenkins v. Richland Correctional Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2003-01768-AD, 2003-Ohio-4483. {¶ 14} 10) The fact 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), 8602635-AD. {¶ 15} 11) Defendant, when it retains control over whether an inmate s cell door is to be open or closed, owes a duty of reasonable care to inmates who are exclusively forced to store their possessions in the cell when they are absent from the cell. Smith v. Rehabilitation and Correction (1978), 77-0440-AD. {¶ 16} 12) However, in the instant claim, plaintiff has failed to prove defendant negligently or intentionally failed to lock his cell door, and therefore, no liability shall attach to defendant as a result of any theft based on this contention. Carrithers v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (2002), 2001-09079-AD. The facts support the conclusion plaintiff s own cellmate left their cell door unlocked thereby giving a thief access to plaintiff s locker box. {¶ 17} 13) 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. {¶ 18} 14) However, 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. In the instant case, the bulk of plaintiff s property items claimed were indistinguishable and, therefore, no duty to search arose. {¶ 19} 15) 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. Plaintiff has failed to prove defendant delayed in conducting any search or conducted an inadequate search. {¶ 20} 16) Prison regulations 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. Connor (1995), 515 U.S. 472, 481-482, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418. Indeed, the 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 plaintiff asserts claims based upon alleged violations of internal rules and regulations, he fails to state a claim for relief {¶ 21} 17) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of his property was stolen 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. 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 RONNIE LEE WALLACE Plaintiff v. GRAFTON CORRECTION INSTITUTION Defendant Case No. 2009-01743-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: Ronnie Lee Wallace, #140-221 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 2500 S. Avon-Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044 RDK/laa 6/17 Filed 6/30/09 Sent to S.C. reporter 10/29/09 Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 770 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43222

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.