Opinion
Case No. 2019-01083JD
09-16-2020
JERONE MCDOUGALD Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant
Magistrate Holly True Shaver
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
{¶1} On June 22, 2020, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a response on July 27, 2020. Then, on July 31, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, a motion to extend the deadlines for discovery and the filing of dispositive motions, and a motion for leave to amend his complaint. On August 4, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to supplement his July 31, 2020 motion to compel discovery. Upon review, plaintiff's motions lack merit and, therefore, are DENIED.
{¶2} Defendant's motion for summary judgment is now before the court for a non-oral hearing pursuant to Civ.R. 56 and L.C.C.R. 4. Plaintiff's complaint asserts that defendant was negligent by failing to preserve surveillance video footage that, according to plaintiff, showed that plaintiff was denied medical care after a use-of-force incident. In its motion for summary judgment, defendant asserts that this action is the second time that plaintiff has brought essentially the same negligence claim against it, and therefore, plaintiff's complaint is barred by res judicata. For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion will be granted.
Standard of Review
{¶3} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:
Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed
in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor.
{¶4} "[T]he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial court which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element of the nonmoving party's claim." Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 1996-Ohio-107, 662 N.E.2d 264. To meet this initial burden, the moving party must be able to point to evidentiary materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C). Id. at 292-293.
{¶5} When a moving party makes a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in the pleadings but "by affidavit or as otherwise provided in [Civ.R. 56] must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Civ.R. 56(E). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court may only consider the evidence properly before it pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C) and 56(E). CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Wiley, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-642, 2016-Ohio-5902, ¶ 10. The court must resolve all doubts and construe the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. Pilz v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-240, 2004-Ohio-4040, ¶ 8.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶6} According to plaintiff's complaint, he "reviewed institutional surveillance video footage on December 1, 2017 pertaining to the denial of medical treatment and decontamination in relation to [his] 1983 civil action for excessive force and deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical needs." On that same day, he found out that "the institutional inspector Linnea Mahlman failed to copy, save and preserve this camera footage capturing the denial of medical treatment and decontamination by" the nurse. According to plaintiff, the deletion of the footage was in violation of ODRC policy 09-INV-01. Plaintiff alleges that the failure to preserve the footage caused his claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs to be dismissed in federal court.
This appears to contradict plaintiff's first statement, in which he asserts that he reviewed the footage. Interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court construes plaintiff's statements as asserting that the footage that allegedly captured the denial of medical treatment was destroyed. --------
{¶7} In its motion, defendant claims that plaintiff brought a similar claim against it in case number 2019-00352JD before this court. In that case, plaintiff alleged that defendant's employees used OC spray on him on May 2, 2016. He was then taken to the medical department for treatment. On December 1, 2017, plaintiff requested and was permitted to view the video footage of the use-of-force incident. However, in accordance with defendant's surveillance video policy, the video footage of the medical treatment on May 2, 2016 had not been preserved. Consequently, plaintiff was not able to review it. According to plaintiff, his inability to obtain the video of the medical treatment resulted in the dismissal of a related federal case brought by plaintiff. It appears that plaintiff lists a different federal case number in case number 2019-00352JD than plaintiff listed in the instant case. In case number 2019-00352JD, defendant was granted summary judgment because plaintiff filed the case outside of the statute of limitations and defendant was entitled to discretionary immunity regarding its surveillance video retention policy.
{¶8} It is unclear whether the deleted surveillance camera footage that forms the basis of the instant case is the same footage that was at issue in case number 2019-00352JD. Defendant submitted with its motion the affidavit of Linnea Mahlman, the institutional inspector at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. In her affidavit, Mahlman describes her involvement in investigating the May 2, 2016 use-of-force incident that was alleged in case number 2019-00352JD. However, the Verification of Opportunity to Review Video Footage form submitted by defendant with Mahlman's affidavit indicates that the video that plaintiff reviewed or attempted to review on December 1, 2017 related to a third, different federal case. Additionally, plaintiff submitted with his memorandum in opposition a purported discovery request that refers to a use-of-force incident and denial of medical treatment on October 7, 2016.
{¶9} Mahlman also averred in her affidavit regarding DRC policy 09-INV-01, which governs the retention of surveillance video footage. The policy was submitted with the affidavit. The policy requires defendant to retain video footage for 14 days unless the video is part of an official investigation. According to Mahlman, after the 14 days have passed, "the video is automatically recorded over by new surveillance video."
Law and Analysis
{¶10} In its motion, defendant argues that (1) plaintiff's complaint is barred by res judicata, (2) plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations, (3) plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law because defendant has discretionary immunity regarding the creation of its policies, and (4) plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief because a mere violation of defendant's policies does not provide plaintiff with a cause of action. In his memorandum in opposition, plaintiff does not respond to defendant's arguments, but rather asserts in an affidavit that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be denied pursuant to Civ.R. 56(F) because plaintiff "cannot present facts essential to justify [his] opposition to [defendant's motion] due to [defendant's] non compliance (sic) with Discovery." As an exhibit to his affidavit, plaintiff submitted a discovery request, purportedly from April 17, 2020, in which he requested documents related to a use-of-force incident and denial of medical treatment on October 7, 2016. However, defendant submitted—with its memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint—proof that defendant has complied with discovery. Furthermore, plaintiff does not explain in his memorandum in opposition how the requested discovery is necessary for him to respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, plaintiff's Civ.R. 56(F) argument is not well taken.
Plaintiff's claim is barred by res judicata
{¶11} The doctrine of res judicata embodies the idea that "an existing final judgment or decree between the parties to litigation is conclusive as to all claims which were or might have been litigated in the first lawsuit." (emphasis sic) (internal citations omitted) Grava v. Parkman Township, 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 382, 1995-Ohio-331, 653 N.E.2d 226. Res judicata bars a subsequent claim when "(1) there was a prior valid judgment on the merits; (2) the second action involved the same parties as the first action; (3) the present action raises claims that were or could have been litigated in the prior action; and (4) both actions arise out of the same transaction or occurrence." Reasoner v. City of Columbus, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-800, 2005-Ohio-468, ¶ 5. There is no dispute that the current case involves the same parties as case number 2019-00352JD and that the prior case resulted in a judgment on the merits.
{¶12} In both the instant complaint and the complaint in case number 2019-00352JD, plaintiff states that he discovered on December 1, 2017 that the respective surveillance video footage had been deleted. Plaintiff filed the previous action on March 14, 2019. Therefore, plaintiff could have litigated the instant claim in the previous action.
{¶13} In analyzing the fourth prong—in order to resolve all doubts and construe the evidence in favor of plaintiff—the court assumes that the video footage that forms the basis of plaintiff's claim was taken when plaintiff received or was denied medical treatment after a use-of-force incident on October 7, 2016. The tortious act for which plaintiff sues is the deletion of that video footage. Plaintiff previously sued defendant for deleting video footage which allegedly showed defendant denying plaintiff medical treatment on May 2, 2016. The question then is whether the deletion of the October 7, 2016 video footage and the deletion of the May 2, 2016 video footage were part of the same transaction or occurrence.
{¶14} A transaction is defined as "a 'common nucleus of operative facts.'" Grava, 73 Ohio St.3d at 382, quoting 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Judgments, Section 24 (1982). The Ohio Supreme Court adopted this definition in Grava when it adopted the modern view of res judicata, which is expressed in the Restatement of Judgments (Restatement). The Restatement goes on to explain: "When a defendant is accused of successive but nearly simultaneous acts, or acts which though occurring over a period of time were substantially of the same sort and similarly motivated, fairness to the defendant as well as the public convenience may require that they be dealt with in the same action." (Emphasis added.) 1 Restatement, Section 24, Comment d. The Restatement also provides the following example: "When a person trespasses daily upon the land of another for a week, although the owner of the land might have maintained an action each day, such a series of trespasses is considered a unit up to the time when action is brought." 1 Restatement, Section 24, Comment d.
{¶15} In this case, defendant's security cameras captured video footage of plaintiff on a daily basis when plaintiff was in view of the cameras. Pursuant to defendant's policy, that footage was deleted 14 days later unless there was a reason to preserve the footage. According to the institutional inspector, pursuant to defendant's policy, the overwriting of old footage with new footage is done automatically. Consequently, video footage of plaintiff was automatically erased on a daily basis.
{¶16} One of the reasons for the doctrine of res judicata is that it promotes the efficient use of limited judicial time and resources. See Grava, 73 Ohio St.3d at 383-384; see also Purk v. United States, 2d Dist. Miami No. 92 43, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2017 ("The purpose of the doctrine of res judicata is, quite simply, to prevent harassment and ensure the efficiency of the courts by ending litigation."). Plaintiff asserted in both complaints that he discovered on December 1, 2016, that the respective videos had been deleted. There was thus no reason for plaintiff not to bring the instant claim in case number 2019-00352JD. The court therefore concludes that res judicata applies to bar plaintiff from asserting the instant claim.
Plaintiff's complaint otherwise fails to bring a valid claim for relief
{¶17} Even if res judicata did not apply, defendant would be granted summary judgment. When a moving party makes a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in the pleadings but "by affidavit or as otherwise provided in [Civ.R. 56] must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Civ.R. 56(E). Defendant presented evidence showing that the deletion of the relevant surveillance video footage was in accordance with its policies. Plaintiff has not presented any rebuttal evidence to show that the deletion of the footage was negligent or otherwise improper. Furthermore, even if defendant violated its policy in deleting the video, a violation of prison rules, policies, or regulations does not create a cause of action for plaintiff. Triplett v. Warren Corr. Inst., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-728, 2013-Ohio-2743, ¶ 10. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact and defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Conclusion
{¶18} Construing the evidence most strongly in plaintiff's favor, the court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its entry upon the journal.
/s/_________
PATRICK M. MCGRATH
Judge Filed September 16, 2020
Sent to S.C. Reporter 11/3/20