Bailey v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Bailey v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2006-Ohio-7180.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MR. CALVIN L. BAILEY : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-06597-AD DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION : MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) During November, 2000, plaintiff, Calvin Bailey, an inmate, arrived at defendant s Institution ( NCCI ). North Central Correctional Plaintiff pointed out that shortly after he arrived at NCCI he was informed he could not retain his watch and was ordered to authorize the mailing of all jewelry items from the institution to his home address. Plaintiff s jewelry, including his watch, were mailed from NCCI. On December 26, 2000, plaintiff filed an informal complaint, alleging his watch was damaged beyond repair when it arrived through the mail at his home address. Plaintiff claimed the watch was valued at $695.00 and defendant is liable for the replacement cost of the damaged item. Plaintiff filed this complaint on May 11, 2005. {¶ 2} 2) On January 8, 2004, while plaintiff was incarcerated at defendant s Marion Correctional Institution ( MCI ), a fan in plaintiff s possession was confiscated by MCI staff. related the confiscated returned to him. fan, valued at $20.00, Plaintiff was never On February 2, 2004, plaintiff was sent to a segregation unit at MCI and his personal property was delivered into the custody of MCI personnel. Plaintiff claimed his two jersey t-shirts, two pairs of dress shorts, two pairs of sweats, and two pairs of thermal underwear were not packed when he was sent to segregation. Plaintiff asserted these property items valued at $170.00 were lost or stolen by MCI employees. {¶ 3} 3) On May 31, 2004, plaintiff again was transferred to a segregation unit at MCI. Plaintiff claimed several items of his personal property came up missing incident to his transfer to the MCI segregation unit. Plaintiff related three pairs of shoes, a silk pajama set, seven cassette tapes, six pairs of silk underwear, underwear, six five pairs books, of cotton headphones, boxer socks, miscellaneous commissary items were missing. these articles at $1,283.00. shorts, thermal washcloths, and Plaintiff valued Plaintiff contended MI personnel were responsible for the loss of his property. {¶ 4} 4) On October 8, 2004, while plaintiff was incarcerated at defendant s plaintiff s Toledo radio was Correctional confiscated impermissible record feature. electrical shop and feature. The radio a because the ( ToCI ), device had an The radio was taken to the ToCI technician was Institution then disconnected returned to the record plaintiff, who complained the device was broken beyond repair by ToCI electric shop personnel. Plaintiff maintained his radio valued at $85.00 was rendered totally nonfunctional. Also, plaintiff related he was transferred to a segregation unit on October 8, 2004, and several items of his personal property were missing after his property was supposedly secured by ToCI staff. Plaintiff noted his blanket, two towels, three washcloths, three pairs of boxer shorts, and assorted commissary items were packed property delivered to defendant. missing from his Plaintiff valued these items at $180.00. {¶ 5} 5) Furthermore, plaintiff claimed his television set was broken on January 19, 2005, in transport from ToCI to the Ross Correctional Institution ( RCI ). Plaintiff stated the television set had a replacement value of $175.00. {¶ 6} 6) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $2,500.00, the statutory maximum amount recoverable in a claim of this type. Plaintiff contended his vast amount of property was damaged, lost, or stolen at various times as a proximate cause of negligence on the part of defendant s employees. {¶ 7} 7) Defendant argued any claim plaintiff may have concerning damage to his watch is barred by the two-year statute of limitations promulgated in R.C. 2743.16. Plaintiff s cause of action regarding his watch accrued more than two years prior to the filing of this complaint. {¶ 8} 8) Defendant property January loss 8, denied occurring 2004, at on any or liability for February Defendant MCI. about explained any 2, alleged 2004, and plaintiff was issued a conduct report on January 8, 2004, for possession of contraband. confiscated, The included cassette tapes. to a declared an contraband altered items, fan, towel, which and were sixteen On February 2, 2004, plaintiff was transferred segregation unit and his defendant s custody. Initially, plaintiff s property, defendant property was delivered after receiving claimed several into custody items of were confiscated as contraband, including two thermal shirts, seven t-shirts, and property two articles pairs of shorts. confiscated, with Defendant the related exception of all excess state issue sheets and blankets, were subsequently returned to plaintiff. On April 8, 2004, plaintiff reported the theft/loss of two jersey t-shirts, two pairs of shorts, two sweat shirts, and one pair of thermal underwear. Defendant has submitted evidence showing clothing items were confiscated from plaintiff on December 10, 2004, and subsequently destroyed pursuant to an authorized forfeiture order issued by the Marion County Court of Common Pleas. {¶ 9} 9) Evidence has shown plaintiff was transferred to a security control unit at MCI on May 31, 2004, and his personal property was packed by defendant s employees. Defendant explained three pairs of shoes, books, headphones, socks, wash cloths, items, underwear, and other seven cassette property were tapes, assorted confiscated possession and declared contraband. from commissary plaintiff s Defendant claimed plaintiff received a conduct report for contraband possession. Defendant did not include a copy of the conduct report issued on or about May 31, 2004. Defendant seemingly acknowledged the items declared contraband on or about May 31, 2004, were subsequently destroyed. Defendant did not submit any documents granting authorization to dispose of contraband seized on or about May 31, 2004. proof he about May Defendant contended plaintiff failed to offer any legitimately 31, 2004, possessed and the items subsequently confiscated destroyed. on or Defendant submitted a copy of plaintiff s property inventory compiled on May 31, 2004. CONTRABAND. Various items are listed under a heading, Items listed under this heading include papers, chess set, chips, lotions, bowl, shampoo, shoes (three pairs), 7 tapes, 8 washcloths, 4 pair of socks, 2 clips, pops, pajamas, tshirts, shirts, reasonably and other items determine given the the trier condition of of fact the cannot submitted document. {¶ 10} 10) plaintiff s Defendant personal confirmed property losing when segregation unit on October 8, 2004. he certain was items transferred of to a Defendant acknowledged two towels, three washcloths, and three pairs of boxer shorts were lost by ToCI staff. Defendant admitted liability in the amount of $31.49 for these items. items at $125.00. Conversely, plaintiff valued the Defendant denied losing any commissary items arguing, there are no commissary slips to support plaintiff purchased commissary Defendant contended items he plaintiff claims failed in to the complaint. produce evidence establishing he owned a blue blanket which he claimed was lost on or about October 8, 2004. plaintiff s property inventory does not list a blanket. Defendant produced a copy of dated February 24, 2004, that Plaintiff possessed two blankets on February 2, 2004, which were listed as contraband. Defendant reasoned since plaintiff did not possess a blanket on February 24, 2004, he probably did not possess a blanket on October 8, 2004. Defendant denied liability for any loss of a blanket. Additionally, defendant plaintiff s radio. denied ToCI personnel damaged Defendant explained plaintiff s radio was discovered to have an operational recording feature, a feature not permitted by inmates to possess on their personal radios. Defendant related plaintiff allowed a ToCI electrical technician to disconnect the recording feature and the radio was returned to plaintiff with the recording capability inhibited, but with all other features operational. week after complained suggested the to recording ToCI feature staff plaintiff On October 15, 2004, about a his tampered was radio with disconnected, was the broken. radio plaintiff Defendant himself in an attempt to reconnect the recording capability on the device. Defendant denied damaging the radio. ToCI electric technician, A. Palacios, stated he disabled the recording function on the radio, but noted, other functions and components of the radio were still operational. {¶ 11} 11) Furthermore, defendant argued plaintiff has failed to prove his television set was damaged when the transferred from ToCI to RCI on January 20, 2005. set was Defendant maintained no evidence of damage has been produced. {¶ 12} 12) In his response to defendant s investigation report, plaintiff insisted his fan was not altered and MCI staff destroyed the fan without obtaining proper authorization. Some evidence in the form of a Conduct Report, has been submitted to show the fan was altered; it appears the name and number has been tampered personnel with. returned property declared contraband. establish his Plaintiff radio defendant s employees. to denied him which any of defendant s had initially been Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to and television set were damaged by CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 13} 1) R.C. 2743.16(A) states: {¶ 14} (A) Subject to division (B) of this section, civil actions against the state permitted by sections 2743.01 to 2743.20 of the Revised Code shall be commenced no later than two years after the date of accrual of the cause of action or within any shorter period that is applicable to similar suits between private parties. {¶ 15} Taking cause of plaintiff s action for the evidence damage December, 2000 or January, 2001. in to the his best watch light, his occurred in Plaintiff filed this complaint on May 11, 2005, more than four years after his cause of action accrued. Plaintiff s claim for the damage to his watch is barred by R.C. 2743.16(A), the statute of limitations for filing in this court. Any claim involving damage to plaintiff s watch is dismissed. {¶ 16} 2) 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), 8501546-AD. {¶ 17} 3) In order to recover against a defendant in a tort action, plaintiff reasonable basis furnishes a must for basis produce sustaining for only evidence which furnishes his claim. If his a guess, among a evidence different possibilities, as to any essential issues in the case, he fails to sustain the burden as to such issue. Inc. (1954), 161 Ohio St. 82. Landon v. Lee Motors, {¶ 18} 4) Plaintiff has failed to prove a causal connection between breach the of damage to his duty owed by a inmate property. television defendant set in and radio regard to and any protecting Druckenmiller v. Mansfield Correctional Inst. (1998), 97-11819-AD. The claims for damage to a television and radio are denied. {¶ 19} 5) The state cannot be sued for the exercise of any executive or planning function involving the making of a policy decision characterized discretion. by the use of a high degree of Reynolds v. State (1984), 14 Ohio St. 3d 68. {¶ 20} 6) An inmate plaintiff is barred from pursuing a claim for the loss of use of restricted property when such property is declared impermissible pursuant to departmental policy. v. Dept. of Rehab. and Corr. (2001), 2000-09849-AD. Zerla Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to show his radio was damaged when the impermissible recording function disconnected by defendant s employee. on the device was Plaintiff failed to prove the radio was rendered totally nonfunctional by defendant. {¶ 21} 7) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, he sustained any property loss which was the proximate result of any negligence on the part of defendant in regard to clothing Fitzgerald v. items Department (1998), 97-10146-AD. confiscated of in February, Rehabilitation and 2004. Correction Some evidence has been provided to show shirts, shorts, and thermal underwear were returned to plaintiff after being confiscated by MCI staff on or about February 2, 2004. possessed No evidence sweats on has been February 2, produced 2004, to or prove that plaintiff sweats were confiscated. Plaintiff s property inventory dated February 20, 2004, lists shorts, thermal underwear, and shirts. {¶ 22} 8) Plaintiff property in which has he no right to pursue cannot prove any a claim rightful for ownership. DeLong v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1988), 88-06000-AD. contraband Defendant cannot be held liable for the loss of property that plaintiff has no right to possess. Radford v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1984), 84-09071. An inmate maintains no right of ownership in property which is impermissibly altered and therefore, has no right to recovery when the altered property is destroyed. Watley v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2005-05183-AD; jud, 2005-Ohio-4320. Consequently, plaintiff s claim for the fan, which was altered, is denied. In respect to the property items claimed missing on or about May 31, 2004, the trier of fact finds sufficient evidence has been presented to establish plaintiff legitimately owned these items and all items claimed were lost or misplaced at some period during 2004, while under the control of MCI personnel. finds plaintiff has proven Additionally, the trier of fact ToCI staff lost or misplaced all property items claimed as missing on or about October 8, 2004. {¶ 23} 9) Negligence by defendant has been shown in respect to the loss of property claimed on May 31 and October 8, 2004. Baisden v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1977), 76-0617AD; Stewart v. Ohio National Guard (1979), 78-0342-AD. {¶ 24} 10) As trier of fact, this court has the power to award reasonable damages based on evidence presented. Sims v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 239. {¶ 25} 11) Damage assessment is a matter within the function of the trier of fact. 3d 42. Litchfield v. Morris (1985), 25 Ohio App. Reasonable certainty as to the amount of damages is required, which is that degree of certainty of which the nature of the case admits. Bemmes v. Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys. Of Ohio (1995), 102 Ohio App. 3d 782. {¶ 26} 12) Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $350.00. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MR. CALVIN L. BAILEY : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-06597-AD DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons concurrently set forth herewith, in the judgment memorandum is plaintiff in the amount of $350.00. against defendant. The clerk shall rendered decision in filed favor of Court costs are assessed serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Calvin L. Bailey, #338-770 P.O. Box 7010 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 For Defendant RDK/laa 5/3 Filed 5/23/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 2/28/07
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.
