Opinion
No. 2003-06531-AD.
Filed January 16, 2004.
Daniel L. Spitler II #235-739, 1417 Lucasville-Minford Road, Lucasville, Ohio 45648-8472, Plaintiff, Pro se.
Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel, Department of Rehabilitation, and Correction, 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229, DRB/RDK/laa, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT
{¶ 1} 1) On or about March 15, 2002, plaintiff, Daniel L. Spitler II, an inmate incarcerated at defendant, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF), authorized the mailing of his television set to a local service shop for repairs. Plaintiff identified the service shop as "Halls' TV Service," located in Portsmouth, Ohio.
{¶ 2} 2) According to plaintiff, his television set arrived at the service shop, was not repaired, and was not sent back to SOCF. Plaintiff asserted he was directed by SOCF staff to send his television set to this particular shop to be repaired. Plaintiff maintained SOCF staff were cautioned to not send items to Halls TV Service.
{¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff subsequently filed this complaint seeking to recover $250.00 or $180.00, amounts representing the replacement cost of a new television set. Additionally, plaintiff has requested the court rule defendant to permit plaintiff to obtain a similar type of television to the item sent out for repairs. Defendant's internal policy requires inmate television sets to be equipped with a transparent outer casing.
{¶ 4} 4) Plaintiff suggested SOCF personnel were charged with a duty to recover his television set from a repair facility plaintiff classified as defunct. Plaintiff has insisted his television set was lost as a proximate result of negligence on the part of SOCF personnel in mailing the television set to a location which they knew did not accept business from defendant's institution.
{¶ 5} 5) On May 2, 2002, plaintiff sent a written inquiry to SOCF staff about his television set. On May 6, 2002, SOCF mailroom employee, Sgt. Marcella McGraw, responded by noting she contacted "Halls T.V." who acknowledged receiving plaintiff's television and agreed to send the set back to SOCF. Plaintiff's television set was never shipped back to SOCF.
{¶ 6} 6) Defendant denied any liability in this matter. Defendant acknowledged plaintiff authorized the mailing of his television set to Hall's television repair shop. However, defendant denied plaintiff was required to send his television set to Hall's repair service. Defendant related SOCF staff complied with plaintiff's request to mail his set to Hall's Television repair shop. Defendant denied any knowledge concerning plaintiff's contentions of Hall's refusal to accept repair work from SOCF. Defendant denied any responsibility for any loss plaintiff may have sustained.
{¶ 7} 7) On October 21, 2003, plaintiff filed a response to defendant's investigation report. Plaintiff reiterated SOCF personnel knew that Hall's repair shop did not accept business from SOCF. Plaintiff also again related he was directed by SOCF personnel to send his set to Hall's repair shop. Plaintiff reasserted SOCF mailroom staff were negligent in sending his television set to a shop which did not accept items from SOCF. Plaintiff again requested this court issue an entry ordering defendant to permit plaintiff to possess a "non-transparent television set."
{¶ 8} 8) On November 25, 2003, plaintiff filed a response to the court's entry of November 13, 2003 and requests the court reconsider the entry based on plaintiff's failure to receive the investigation report from the defendant rather than the court.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
{¶ 9} 1) R.C. 2743.10(A) states in pertinent part:
{¶ 10} "(A) Civil actions against the state for two thousand five hundred dollars or less shall be determined administratively by the clerk of the court of claim . . ."
{¶ 11} The court's jurisdiction at the administrative determination level is confined to addressing issues of money damages. This court does not have jurisdiction to grant plaintiff the relief he seeks; permission to possess a television set with a solid non-transparent case.
{¶ 12} 2) Although not strictly responsible for a prisoner's property, defendant had at least a 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.
{¶ 13} 3) 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.
{¶ 14} 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. In the instant claim, evidence shows the sole cause of plaintiff's loss was the conduct of Hall's repair shop in its refusal to return plaintiff's television set. Defendant did not breach any duty owed to plaintiff in regard to his property.
{¶ 15} Plaintiff's motion to reconsider entry of November 13, 2003 is DENIED. 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. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.