Shelton v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Shelton v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2004-Ohio-2610.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MICHAEL A. SHELTON : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2003-09726-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION : Defendant ::::::::::::::::: FINDINGS OF FACT {¶1} 1) On or about May 17, 2003, plaintiff, Michael A. Shelton, an inmate incarcerated at defendant s Richland Correctional Institution (RiCI), was transferred to a segregation unit. {¶2} 2) Incident to this transfer, plaintiff s personal property items, including sixty-eight packs of cigarettes, were packed and delivered in to the custody of RiCI staff. Plaintiff has alleged that when he regained possession of his property, the cigarettes were not returned to him. {¶3} 3) Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $264.36, the replacement cost of sixty-eight packs of cigarettes. Plaintiff paid the filing fee. {¶4} 4) Defendant denied any liability in this matter. Defendant has no record of packing or exercising control over cigarettes which allegedly belonged to plaintiff. Defendant maintained plaintiff never purchased cigarettes from the institution commissary while confined at RiCI. Defendant contended if cigarettes were confiscated from plaintiff s possession and not returned, plaintiff has no right to assert a claim for the loss of the cigarettes, since evidence strongly suggests the items were obtained through unauthorized means. Essentially, defendant has argued plaintiff cannot produce evidence to show he was the rightful owner of any cigarettes. Defendant submitted documentary evidence showing plaintiff did not possess or purchase any cigarettes prior to May 17, 2003. {¶5} 5) Plaintiff did not file a response to defendant s investigation report. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶6} 1) Plaintiff has no right to assert a claim for property in which he cannot prove he maintained an ownership right. DeLong v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1988), 88-06000-AD; Johnson v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (2000), 2000-07846-AD. {¶7} 2) 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 (1979), 76-0356-AD. {¶8} 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. {¶9} 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), 85-01546AD. {¶10} 5) Plaintiff s failure to prove delivery of certain items of property to defendant constitutes a failure to show imposition of a legal bailment duty on the part of defendant with respect to stolen or lost property. Prunty v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1987), 86-02821-AD. {¶11} 6) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, his listed property was lost or stolen as a proximate result of any negligent conduct attributable to defendant. Fitzgerald v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1998), 97-10146AD. {¶12} 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. ________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Michael A. Shelton, #422-495 P.O. Box 1812 Marion, Ohio 43301 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 DRB/RDK/laa 4/26 Filed 5/5/04 Sent to S.C. reporter 5/24/04 Plaintiff, Pro se For Defendant
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.
