Roudebush v. N. Cent. Corr. Inst.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Roudebush v. N. Cent. Corr. Inst., 2006-Ohio-7235.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO DAVID ROUDEBUSH : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-10624-AD NORTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION : MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On June 22, 2005, employees of defendant, North Central Correctional Institution ( NCCI ), confiscated multiple items of personal property from plaintiff, David Roudebush, an inmate incarcerated at NCCI. {¶ 2} 2) The confiscated property items were contraband and subsequently destroyed by NCCI staff. acknowledged the confiscated property was declared Defendant destroyed without having any prior court ordered authorization. {¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff asserted the destroyed property included food stuffs, envelopes, tobacco products, photographs, a cup, light bulbs, ointment, toiletries, papers, legal materials, socks, books, shoe strings, game cards (magic), art supplies, magazines, drawings, and education materials. Plaintiff stated the destroyed property was valued at $1,824.41. Plaintiff filed this claim seeking to recover the value of his destroyed property. A filing fee was not required. {¶ 4} 4) Defendant destroyed property admitted NCCI confiscated from personnel mistakenly plaintiff s possession. However, defendant disputes the amount of property destroyed and the value Defendant of the destroyed admitted property confiscating and claimed by plaintiff. subsequently destroying socks, books, a light bulb, tobacco product accessories, food stuffs, shoe strings, ointment, photographs, a cup, stencils, magazines, and drawings. Defendant denied confiscating and destroying other property from plaintiff such as game cards, art supplies, envelopes, legal materials, and papers. Plaintiff s property inventory dated June 22, 2005, lists magic cards were packed by defendant. Art supplies, legal materials, envelopes, and additional papers are not listed on this June 22, 2005, property inventory. {¶ 5} 5) Plaintiff investigation report. destroyed by documentation claimed. property. filed a response to defendant s Plaintiff insisted all items claimed were defendant s regarding employees. replacement Plaintiff cost of all provided property The bulk of the items claimed consisted of depreciable Plaintiff has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the value of his destroyed property. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 6} 1) 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. {¶ 7} 2) 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. {¶ 8} 3) Furthermore, 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. {¶ 9} 4) Negligence on the part of defendant has been shown in respect staff. to all property documented as destroyed by NCCI Baisden v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1977), 76-0617-AD. {¶ 10} 5) 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. {¶ 11} 6) Plaintiff s failure to prove delivery of art supplies, such as colored pencils, 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. Consequently, plaintiff s claims for these items are denied. {¶ 12} 7) Plaintiff has failed to prove his personal photographs and magic cards were destroyed or lost while under defendant s control. Fitzgerald v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1998), 97-10146-AD. {¶ 13} 8) The standard measure property loss is market value. of damages for personal McDonald v. Ohio State Univ. Veterinary Hosp. (1994), 67 Ohio Misc. 2d 40. {¶ 14} personal 9) In a property situation where destruction a damage based on assessment market value for is essentially indeterminable, a damage determination may be based on the standard determination value considers of the such property factors to as the value owner. to the This owner, original cost, replacement cost, salvage value, and fair market value at the time of the loss. Cooper v. Feeney (1986), 34 Ohio App. 3d 282. {¶ 15} 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. {¶ 16} the 11) Where the existence of damage is established, evidence need only tend to show the basis for computation of damages to a fair degree of probability. v. Brothers (1992), 82 Ohio App. 3d 148. Only the Brewer 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. {¶ 17} 12) The court finds defendant liable to plaintiff in the amount of $200.00. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO DAVID ROUDEBUSH : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-10624-AD NORTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION : 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 $200.00. 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: David Roudebush, #321-248 670 Marion-Williamsport Road Marion, Ohio 43301-1812 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 For Defendant RDK/laa 7/19 Filed 8/4/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 4/5/07

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.