Terrell v. Ohio Reformatory for Women

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Terrell v. Ohio Reformatory for Women, 2003-Ohio-5911.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO D NANEKAI N. TERRELL : Plaintiff : v. : OHIO REFORMATORY FOR WOMEN : Defendant CASE NO. 2003-04082-AD ENTRY OF DISMISSAL : ::::::::::::::::: {¶1} THE COURT FINDS THAT: {¶2} 1) On March 26, 2003, plaintiff, D Nanekai N. Terrell, filed a complaint against defendant, Ohio Reformatory for Women. Plaintiff alleges on or about March 10, 2000, she was transferred from the institution s general population to a segregation unit. Plaintiff was subsequently transferred to Oakwood Correctional Facility and then returned to a segregation unit at the Ohio Reformatory for Women. According to plaintiff, defendant s personnel exercised control over her property incident to all transfers beginning on March 10, 2000; {¶3} 2) Plaintiff asserts on February 4, 2002, she filed a complaint based on the above incident but due to the intentional actions of Inspector Wright who allegedly lied about the property plaintiff possessed she only received a judgment in the amount of $70.00 which included reimbursement of the filing fee; {¶4} 3) Plaintiff asserts the following items were lost while stored in defendant s vault: 1 hat 8 pairs of tights 2 pairs of long underwear underwear 1 head scarf 1 walkman with headphones photographs 3 pairs of socks Case No. 2003-04082-AD 1 sweat suit 2 t-shirts 1 trash can 1 watch assorted makeup 1 pencil sharpener 1 photo album 1 pair of earrings 1 sweater 1 clock 1 mug 3 doo rags {¶5} 4) -2- ENTRY commissary articles pajamas 1 mirror 1 cross with chain assorted hair care products 1 pair of sun glasses 1 umbrella 1 antenna 1 sweat shirt 1 lock 1 pair of boots 1 electric shaver; Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $1,363.23, the estimated value of her alleged missing property and reimbursement of the filing fee; {¶6} 5) On June 11, 2003, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment; {¶7} 6) In support of the motion, defendant stated in pertinent part: {¶8} Both complaints allege that the defendant negligently lost her property. Specifically, both complaints allege that the defendant took possession of her property when she was sent to segregation. Both complaints allege that the defendant failed to return this property on January 9, 2002. Both complaints allege that the defendant took items of her property when she was transferred from OCF to ORW. Both complaints allege the defendant failed to return this property after she arrived at ORW. {¶9} A final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim or cause of action between the same parties or privies, even if the actions differ in form. Hites v. Irvine s Admr. (1862), 13 Ohio St. 283, 286-288. Where the subject matter and causes of action are identical, a former judgment is conclusive between the parties not only to matters actually determined but also as to any other matters of fact or law which could have been determined by the court. Covington v. Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Sargent (1875), 27 Ohio St. 233, 237. A party has waived its right to introduce new matters for the court s consideration when the party might have introduced the same matters in a previous cause of action before the court. Id. at 237-238. The primary basis of res judicata is identity of Case No. 2003-04082-AD -3- ENTRY causes of action. If there is identity of facts and evidence necessary to sustain each claim, the judgment of the former is bar to judgment of the later. Norwood v. McDonald v. Ohio State Univ. Veterinary Hosp. (1943), 142 Ohio St. 299, 305. ; {¶10} 7) Plaintiff has not responded to defendant s motion for summary judgment. {¶11} THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT: {¶12} 1) Under the doctrine of res judicata, [a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St. 3d 379, 653 N.E. 2d 226, syllabus. Res judicata operates to bar litigation of all claims which were or might have been litigated in a first lawsuit. (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 382, 653 N.E. 2d at 229, quoting Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale (1990), 53 Ohio St. 3d 60, 62, 558 N.E. 2d 1178, 1180; {¶13} 2) Plaintiff is barred from relitigating the same incident; {¶14} 3) Defendant is not responsible for the actions of its employees who acted willfully or beyond the scope of their employment. James H. v. Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (1986), 1 Ohio App. 3d 60; 439 N.E. 2d 437. {¶15} IT IS ORDERED THAT: {¶16} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth above, defendant s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff s case is DISMISSED. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this dismissal and its date of entry upon the journal. ________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: D Nanekai N. Terrell, #28814 1479 Collins avenue Plaintiff, Pro se Case No. 2003-04082-AD -4- Marysville, Ohio 43040 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 DRB/laa 9/19 Filed 9/29/03 Sent to S.C. reporter 11/5/03 For Defendant ENTRY

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.