Hunter v. Ohio Dept. of Corr. & Rehab.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO ANTHONY HUNTER : Plaintiff : v. : : DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION CASE NO. 2003-11569-AD MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant ::::::::::::::::: FINDINGS OF FACT {¶1} Plaintiff, Anthony Hunter, an inmate incarcerated at defendant s Mansfield Correctional Institution, asserted he was denied access to his Smith Corona Wordsmith 250 typewriter pursuant to defendant s internal policy restriction. Plaintiff was denied access to his typewriter because the appliance exceeded defendant s policy limitation of one-line memory for typewriters. authorized the mailing of his typewriter from Plaintiff defendant s institution on or about October 8, 2003. {¶2} Plaintiff contended he should have been permitted to retain his typewriter. He has filed this complaint seeking to recover $130.00 loss for price of typewriter; $30.00 loss for price of unusable accessories for typewriter; $25.00 loss for copies, postage, and production and preparation of this action; $500.00 damages for loss of use and the inconvenience caused by loss of use; $500.00 for disciplinary sanctions imposed on the plaintiff; and $25.00 for filing fee in Court of Claims; also $6.67 for loss for postage in sending typewriter out of prison under direct order. Plaintiff s total damage claim amounts to $1,216.67. Defendant maintained plaintiff s typewriter was disallowed because {¶3} the property contained multiple lines of memory, condition which violated defendant s internal policy. insisted the restrictions. typewriter was prohibited pursuant a Defendant to policy Additionally, defendant has contended plaintiff did not suffer a property loss since the typewriter was not lost or destroyed. Defendant had admitted liability for the postage loss of $6.67, plaintiff was assessed to send the typewriter home, plus $25 for filing fees. {¶4} Plaintiff filed a response. The information contained in plaintiff s response does not support his claim for entitlement to any damages based on defendant s act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶5} The state cannot be sued for the exercise of any executive planning function involving the making of characterized by a high degree of discretion. (1984), 14 Ohio St. 3d 68. a policy decision Reynolds v. State In the instant claim, defendant is immune from suit based on a policy decision to declare plaintiff s typewriter impermissible property. An inmate plaintiff is barred from pursuing a claim for the loss of restricted property when such property is declared impermissible pursuant to departmental policy. Zerla v. Dept. of Rehab. and Corr. (2001), 2000-09849-AD; Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (2002), 2002-03881-AD. plaintiff s claim shall be dismissed in its entirety. shall disregard any admission made by defendant. Therefore, The court {¶6} 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: Anthony Hunter, #322-916 1150 N. Main Street Mansfield, Ohio 44901 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 RDK/laa 4/12 Filed 4/15/04 Sent to S.C. reporter 5/6/04 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.
