Lacey v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Lacey v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2005-Ohio-5599.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
www.cco.state.oh.us
FRANK LACEY
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
CASE NO. 2005-07453-AD
Judge J. Craig Wright
Magistrate Steven A. Larson
:
DECISION
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
:
Defendant
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
{¶ 1} On August 15, 2005, defendant filed a motion for judgment
on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6).
On October
3, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to strike and a request for an
oral hearing.
Upon review, plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED.
{¶ 2} A motion for judgment on the pleadings presents only a
question of law and may be granted only where no material factual
issues exist and when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.
Peterson v. Teodosio (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 161.
{¶ 3} It is not disputed that plaintiff was an inmate in the
custody and control of defendant at defendant’s Lima Correctional
Institution (LCI) at all times relevant to this action.
complaint,
plaintiff
imprisonment,
alleges
conversion,
wrongful
medical
imprisonment,
negligence,
and
In his
false
invasion
of
privacy.
{¶ 4} To the extent that plaintiff alleges that his confinement
violates
rights
guaranteed
by
the
Ohio
or
United
States
Constitutions, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider those
claims.
See, e.g, Thompson v. Southern State Community College
(June
15,
1989),
Franklin
App.
No.
89AP-114;
cf.
National
Collegiate Ath. Ass’n. v. Tarkanian (1988), 488 U.S. 179; White v.
Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr. (Dec. 22, 1992), Franklin App. No.
92AP-1229.
Thus, defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law as to plaintiff’s constitutional claims.
{¶ 5} Plaintiff claims false imprisonment.
The elements of that
claim are: (1) expiration of the lawful term of confinement; (2)
intentional confinement after the expiration; and (3) knowledge
that the privilege initially justifying the confinement no longer
exists.
Corder v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1994), 94 Ohio
App.3d 315; Bennett v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1991), 60 Ohio
St.3d 107. However, “an action for false imprisonment cannot be
maintained
where
the
wrong
complained
of
is
imprisonment
in
accordance with the judgment or order of a court, unless it appear
that such judgment or order is void.”
Bennett, at 111, citing
Diehl v. Friester (1882), 37 Ohio St. 473, 475.
In his complaint,
plaintiff admits that he was convicted of aggravated murder in 1980
and sentenced to life in prison.
the
criminal
evidentiary
proceedings
defects,
were
none
jurisdictional in nature.
Although plaintiff alleges that
riddled
of
these
with
procedural
alleged
defects
and
are
Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that
his conviction is void is not supported by the facts pleaded in the
complaint. Consequently, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a
claim for false imprisonment.
{¶ 6} Plaintiff also claims wrongful imprisonment.
This court
does not have jurisdiction to make the initial determination that
plaintiff is a wrongfully imprisoned individual.
Bennett, supra.
Plaintiff must first seek that determination from the common pleas
court pursuant to R.C. 2743.48.
Plaintiff has not alleged that he
has obtained the necessary determination.
Consequently, the court
is without jurisdiction to consider his claim.
{¶ 7} Plaintiff seeks damages from defendant for being placed in
“the hole” and for being “illegally” transported to Ohio State
University Hospital for a medical evaluation.
Inmate claims
concerning the conditions of confinement are treated as civil
rights actions under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code.
See Baker
v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab and Corr., 144 Ohio App.3d 740, 2001-Ohio2553.
However, a cause of action under Section 1983, Title 42,
U.S.Code may not be brought against the state in the Court of
Claims because the state is not a “person” within the meaning of
Section 1983.
See, e.g., Jett v. Dallas Indep. School Dist.
(1989), 491 U.S. 701; Burkey v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
(1988), 38 Ohio App.3d 170; White v. Chillicothe Correctional
Institution
(Dec.
29,
1992),
Franklin
App.
No.
92AP-1230.
Moreover, Ohio courts have consistently held that the state cannot
be sued for its legislative or judicial functions, or the exercise
of an executive function involving a high degree of official
discretion or judgment.
See Deavors v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and
Corr. (May 20, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-1105.
See, also, Bell
v. Wolfish (1979), 441 U.S. 520, 547.
{¶ 8} Next, plaintiff’s complaint asserts that defendant lost or
destroyed certain items of personal property that were being stored
in the institutional vault while plaintiff was in segregation.
When prison authorities obtain possession of an inmate’s property,
a bailment relationship arises between the correctional facility
and the inmate.
Miller v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr. (1985),
Court of Claims No. 84-08661-AD; Buhrow v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and
Corr. (1985), Court of Claims No. 85-01562-AD.
By virtue of this
relationship, defendant must exercise ordinary care in handling and
storing the property.
Id.
{¶ 9} Inasmuch as there is an issue of fact as to whether
defendant exercised ordinary care in handling and storing any items
of plaintiff’s property in its possession, plaintiff’s claims of
conversion shall remain pending.
{¶ 10}
To the extent that plaintiff alleges medical negligence
based upon defendant’s decision to confiscate leg weights he used
as
treatment
for
an
ankle
injury,
plaintiff’s
complaint
conclusively demonstrates that his action was not timely filed.
R.C. 2305.113 requires that a medical claim must be brought within
one year of the date the cause of action accrued.
Plaintiff
alleges that he discovered his leg weights had been confiscated
when
he
was
released
from
segregation
on
June
16,
2003.
Plaintiff’s complaint was not filed until June 13, 2005, almost two
years after his cause accrued.
{¶ 11}
Plaintiff alleges that the unauthorized disclosure of
his medical records violated his privacy rights.
An inmate’s right
to privacy is not an absolute right nor necessarily equivalent to
that of a non-incarcerated citizen.
Indeed, R.C. 5120.21 permits
employees of defendant to access prisoners’ records.
Ohio
Dept.
of
Rehab.
and
Corr.
(1991),
73
Ohio
Wilson v.
App.3d
496.
Similarly, Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-49(F) expressly provides that:
“Non-public records of the department may, in the sole discretion
of the director, or designee, be made available to *** other
persons with a need for access to such documents ***.”
{¶ 12}
In
his
complaint,
plaintiff
alleges
that
his
“confidential medical information was illegally released to prison
authorities.”
Plaintiff
has
not
alleged
disclosure
to
any
unauthorized party; moreover, plaintiff invited the disclosure of
his prison medical records when he filed several grievances related
to his leg weights that placed his medical history and/or condition
at issue.
See Wilson, supra.
In short, plaintiff’s complaint
fails to state a claim for invasion of privacy.
{¶ 13}
With respect to plaintiff’s claim that he suffered
emotional injuries, plaintiff has failed to allege any conduct on
the part of defendant that could be reasonably characterized as
extreme and outrageous as that term is defined in the case law.
See Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369,
374-375.
{¶ 14}
judgment
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for
on
the
pleadings
shall
be
granted,
in
part,
as
to
plaintiff’s claims for wrongful imprisonment, false imprisonment,
medical negligence, and invasion of privacy.
Plaintiff’s complaint
does, however, state a claim for relief for the conversion of his
personal property.
{¶ 15}
Additionally,
the
court
finds
that
the
value
of
plaintiff’s claim for the conversion of his alarm clock, six
missing bags of potato chips, and leg weights is less than or equal
to $2,500 and, accordingly, this case shall be transferred to the
administrative docket pursuant to R.C. 2743.10.
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
www.cco.state.oh.us
FRANK LACEY
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
CASE NO. 2005-07453-AD
Judge J. Craig Wright
Magistrate Steven A. Larson
:
JUDGMENT ENTRY
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
:
Defendant
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
For the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently
herewith, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is
GRANTED, in part.
Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby amended to
reduce plaintiff’s prayer to $2,500 and this case is consequently
TRANSFERRED to the administrative docket.
The case shall be
processed accordingly.
________________________________
J. CRAIG WRIGHT
Judge
Entry cc:
Frank Lacey, #158-452
Grafton Correctional Institution
2500 S. Avon-Beldon Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
Plaintiff, Pro se
Douglas R. Folkert
Assistant Attorney General
150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130
Attorney for Defendant
LP/AS/cmd
Filed October 13, 2005
To S.C. reporter October 20, 2005
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.
