Griffin v. Ohio Dept. of Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Griffin v. Ohio Dept. of Corr., 2006-Ohio-7150.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MARK GRIFFIN : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-08271-AD OHIO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS : Defendant MEMORANDUM DECISION : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On defendant s or about Mansfield January 27, Correctional 2005, an employee Institution of ( ManCI ), confiscated a cassette player in the possession of plaintiff, Mark Griffin, an inmate. The confiscated cassette player did not have a motor and was consequently, unusable. It is presumed plaintiff removed the motor from the cassette player in effect altering the property item. {¶ 2} 2) The cassette player was stored under the control of ManCI staff for several months and subsequently destroyed. {¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff asserted he neither authorized the destruction of the altered cassette player nor was given the opportunity to mail the altered item home. Although defendant s personnel declared the altered cassette player contraband, this declared contraband was destroyed without any court-ordered authorization. {¶ 4} 4) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $22.99, the total replacement cost of a new unaltered working Case No. 2005-08271-AD cassette player. -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION Plaintiff also seeks damages of $100.00, for pain and unwanted stress. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 5} 1) This court does not recognize any entitlement to damages for mental distress and extraordinary damages for simple negligence involving property loss. Galloway v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1979), 78-0731-AD; Berke v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Welfare (1976), 52 Ohio App. 2d 271. {¶ 6} 2) Generally, an inmate plaintiff may recover the value of confiscated property destroyed by agents of defendant when those agents acted without authority or right to carry out the property destruction. Berg v. Belmont Correctional Institution (1998), 97-09261-AD. {¶ 7} 3) However, plaintiff has no right to pursue a claim for property in which he cannot prove any rightful 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. {¶ 8} 4) 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. Zerla Case No. 2005-08271-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION v. Dept. of Rehab. and Corr. (2001), 2000-09849-AD. Case No. 2005-08271-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MARK GRIFFIN : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-08271-AD OHIO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS : Defendant ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons concurrently defendant. set forth herewith, in the judgment is memorandum rendered decision in filed favor Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. of 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: Mark Griffin, #300-430 P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation For Defendant Case No. 2005-08271-AD and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 RDK/laa 3/9 Filed 3/22/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 4/14/06 -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION
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.
