Opinion
2020-00167AD
05-21-2020
MARCUS FOX Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/21/21
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
{¶1} Marcus Fox ("plaintiff), an inmate, filed a complaint against defendant, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). Plaintiff related on June 20, 2019, at defendant's London Correctional Institution, another inmate entered plaintiffs cell while plaintiff was at lunch and stole his JP5 Player. Plaintiff asserts that defendant should be liable for negligence stemming from this incident. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $75.00. Plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee.
{¶2} Defendant submitted an Investigation Report denying liability in this matter. Defendant claims that video of plaintiffs cell from the time of the incident shows that another inmate entered plaintiffs cell and took plaintiffs JP5 Player. Defendant contends that plaintiff has not met his burden of proof for sustaining a negligence claim. Defendant states that it issued the inmate who stole plaintiffs property a conduct report but that the Rules Infraction Board ("RIB") does not have the power to order restitution for inmate's personal property.
{¶3} Plaintiff did respond to defendant's Investigation Report reaffirming his position. Plaintiff did not provide evidence of rightful ownership of the JP5 Player.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
{¶4} 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).
{¶5} "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).
{¶6} 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, 76-0356-AD (1979).
{¶7} This court in Mullett v. Department of Correction, 76-0292-AD (1976), 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} 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, 76-0368-AD (1977).
{¶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).
{¶13} 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. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 78-0217-AD (1978). Here, plaintiff has failed to show an agency relationship or the negligence of defendant.
{¶14} The Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over decisions of the Rules Infraction Board ("RIB"). Chatman v. Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 84-06323-AD (1985); Ryan v. Chillicothe Institution, 81-05181-AD; Rierson v. Department of Rehabilitation, 80-00860-AD (1981).
{¶15} An RIB decision does not relate to civil law, a proper subject for adjudication pursuant to Chapter 2743 of the Ohio Revised Code. Instead, the RIB relates to private rights and remedies involving criminal proceedings and penalties imposed by a disciplinary board. Therefore, it falls outside the court's exclusive jurisdiction. Maynard v. Jago, 76-0581-AD (1977). Accordingly, this court has no jurisdiction to question the underlying factual determination of the RIB. See, Hughley v. Southeastern Correctional Institution, et. al.; 2008-09392, 2009-Ohio-2840; Larkins v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2001-07548, 2001-Ohio-1701; Dearing v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2011-09551-AD, 2011-Ohio-6916; Bell v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2016-00278-AD, 2017-Ohio-9444.
{¶l6} A long line of cases supports the proposition that decisions by the RIB cannot be questioned by this court. Heyward v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2016-00641-AD (2017), affdjud (2017).
{¶17} Furthermore, Ohio Administrative Code ("OAC") 5120-5-02 (D) states: "[f]unds in any amount from an unapproved source . . . shall not be accepted for deposit." OAC 5120-5-02(A)(1) includes inmates in the definition of "unapproved sources."
{¶18} Plaintiffs loss in this case resulted solely from the theft for which defendant is not liable. "The non-securement of funds cannot constitute a separate, independence act of negligence because defendant had no duty to secure and transfer the funds and any resultant harm is purely economic. Per the economic loss rule, a purely economic loss is not recoverable in tort. Corporex Dev. & Constr Mgmt. v. Shook, Inc., 106 Ohio St.3d 412, 2005-Ohio-5409, 835 N.E.2d 701 ¶ 6 (noting that a person who has only suffered an economic loss because of another's negligence does not suffer a legally cognizable or compensable injury)." See Gibbs v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2014-00654-AD, jud (2015), 2015-Ohio-5696.
{¶19} Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant.
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶20} 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.