Opinion
2020-00200AD
09-24-2020
BRIAN HENLEY Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
{¶1} Brian Henley ("plaintiff), an inmate, filed a complaint against defendant, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). Plaintiff related on May 28, 2019, defendant's agent came in to his area and violently kicked his shoes to the other side of his area because they were not in the right place. Plaintiff states that he filed an informal complaint about the issue. After filing the complaint, plaintiff states that the agent repeatedly threatened to shake him down and write a conduct report against him. Plaintiff states that the agent threatened to have him removed from the honor dorm. Plaintiff escalated his informal complaint to a grievance which he asserts was not properly investigated and was dismissed on June 20, 2019. Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Chief Inspector but asserted that it was not given a proper appeal and was denied. Plaintiff contends that ODRC was negligent in failing to supervise and discipline its staff, and that it was negligent in hiring the agent. Further, plaintiff states he voluntarily moved out of the honor dorm for fear of retaliation. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $10,000.00 for mental suffering, pain, and anguish. Plaintiff was not required to submit the $25.00 filing fee.
{¶2} Defendant submitted an Investigation Report denying liability in this matter. ODRC viewed video footage of the initial incident and states that the agent moved plaintiffs shoes with her foot and reminded him of the importance of following honor dorm rules but did not violently kick plaintiffs shoes. Further, ODRC states that retaliation claims arise under the constitution and thus cannot be heard by this court. Finally, ODRC states that plaintiff has failed to prove the elements of negligence.
{¶3} Plaintiff responded to defendant's Investigation Report reasserting his claim.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
{¶4} 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 Coll. of Med., 78 Ohio App.3d 302, 604 N.E.2d 783 (10th Dist. 1992). It is also 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 Correctional Inst, 10th Dist. No. 92AP-1230, 1992 WL 394920 (December 29, 1992). Inmate claims of retaliation are properly treated as constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Deavors v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 98AP-1105, 1999 WL 333327 (May 20, 1999).
{¶5} Additionally, inmate complaints regarding the conditions of confinement are treated as claims arising under Section 1983, Title 43, United States Code. See State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten, 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 91, 637 N.E.2d 306 (1994). To the extent that plaintiffs complaint can be construed as raising a challenge to the conditions of confinement, such a claim is not actionable in the Court of Claims. See Payne v. Mohr, S.D.Ohio No. 2:11-cv-00831, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115620 (Ohio Oct. 6, 2011); Thompson v. Southern State Community College, 10th Dist. No. 89AP-114, 1989 WL 65450 (June 15, 1989); Burkey v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 38 Ohio App.3d 170, 528 N.E.2d 607 (10th Dist. 1988).
{¶6} Because plaintiffs claims of retaliation and being threatened constitute a challenge to the conditions of confinement, the court concludes that these claims are not actionable in this court.
{¶7} In order to prevail, in a claim for negligence, 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 damages. 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., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984).
{¶8} "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 (2nd Dist.), citing Miller v. Paulson, 97 Ohio App.3d 217, 221, 646 N.E.2d 521 (10th Dist. 1994); Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989).
{¶9} 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. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 85-01546-AD (1985).
{¶10} In addition, 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, 479, 1997-Ohio-139, 683 N.E.2d 1139, 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. 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 Ohio Administrative Code, he fails to state a claim for relief. See Sharp v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2008-02410-AD, 2008-Ohio-7064, ¶ 5.
{¶11} 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., 161 Ohio St. 82, 118 N.E.2d 147 (1954).
{¶12} 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's testimony. State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61, 197 N.E.2d 548 (1964). The court finds plaintiffs statement not particularly persuasive. Plaintiff was unable to prove the elements of negligence.
{¶13} Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant.
{¶14} 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.