Noble v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Noble v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2006-Ohio-7248.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO ADAM NOBLE II : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-02838-AD DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND REHABILITATIONS : MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶ 1} Plaintiff, Adam Noble II, an inmate incarcerated at defendant s Trumbull Correctional Institution ( TCI ), asserted his legal materials were confiscated and subsequently destroyed by TCI employee C.O. Williams on March 18, 2005. Plaintiff explained he conducted legal research at the TCI law library during the early afternoon of March 18, 2005, and left about 1:30 with a folder of legal documents to go to the TCI chapel library. According to plaintiff, when he arrived at the chapel carrying his folder of legal documents, he was told by C.O. Charles Williams, permitted to who possess was on legal duty there, material in that the he TCI was not chapel. Plaintiff stated he then left the chapel walking out into the institution yard where he met a fellow inmate and asked this inmate to take his folder cellblock living quarters. of legal documents back to his Plaintiff related the fellow inmate agreed to take the legal papers back to his cell and plaintiff then returned to the TCI chapel where he was stopped by C.O. Williams. Apparently, C.O. Williams noticed papers sticking out of plaintiff s clothes pocket and consequently initiated a pat down search. Plaintiff recalled C.O. Williams confiscated the papers from him. The confiscated papers were characterized by plaintiff as legal material. documents were titled: Freeing the Innocent: Affair and In re: Plaintiff noted the confiscated Lab Fraud, Wrongful Convictions, and The Lessons Learned From The Fred Zain An Investigation of the West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory Serology Division. Plaintiff did not approximate the number of pages comprising the two documents that were stored in his pocket and confiscated by C.O. Williams. Plaintiff did not address the issues concerning why he chose to return to the chapel library carrying seemingly impermissible legal material and why he did not include the confiscated legal material in the folder he requested a fellow inmate return to his cell. {¶ 2} Plaintiff made several attempts to have his confiscated legal material returned. However, the documents could not be found and probably had been destroyed. Plaintiff recollected he first received the legal material at issue from his brother, who according to plaintiff, purchased the documents from an entity identified brother as, Innocence purchased confiscated] from the Project. documents Innocence Project Plaintiff asserted [which were for $335.00. his subsequently Plaintiff submitted a copy of correspondence dated September 26, 2005, typed on Innocence Project letterhead and therefore, purportedly from Innocence Project. Plaintiff stated the correspondence was sent from Innocence Project to his brother and then forwarded to him. The correspondence is addressed to Adam Noble #441-492, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnett Road, P.O. Box 901, Leavittsburg, correspondence OH refers 44430-0901. to the prices The Lab for Convictions, and Freeing the Innocent: body of Fraud, the Wrongful The Lessons Learned From The Fred Zain Affair, George Castelle (In Manuscript) . . . $245.00 and In re: An Investigation of the West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory Serology Division, 190 W.Va. 321, 323, 438 S.E. 2d 501, 503 (1993) . . . $90.00. salutation, closing, and printed The date, address, signature lines of the correspondence are typed in a different font style from the body of the letter. Plaintiff alleged defendant should beheld liable for the replacement cost of the documents confiscated from him on March 18, complaint 2005. seeking Plaintiff to recover has $335.00, value of the seized documents. damages for postage and consequently the stated filed this replacement Plaintiff also seeks $15.00 in copying costs. Postage and copying costs are not recognizable damage elements in a claim of this type and are therefore denied. expenses shall not be further required to pay a filing fee. The issue of postage and copying addressed. Plaintiff was not Plaintiff s damage claim is set at $335.00. {¶ 3} Defendant alternatively, excessive. denied defendant any liability disputed in plaintiff s this damage matter. claim as Defendant contended the submitted letter purportedly from the Innocence Project, offered as proof of damages, is a fabrication. Defendant pointed out the differences, between the typing of the body of the letter, and the typing in the greeting and closing of the letter, as support for the contention the body of the letter was not typed by the Innocence Project personnel. Defendant further contended plaintiff failed to produce proof the seized documents were purchased by him or purchased for him. Although, defendant acknowledged papers were confiscated from plaintiff, defendant asserted plaintiff failed to prove he was the true owner of the replacement cost of the seized documents. documents or the Defendant suggested plaintiff proximately caused the loss of the legal papers by returning to the TCI chapel with the documents in his possession after being given a direct order to remove all legal material from chapel premises. Furthermore, defendant submitted evidence purporting personnel from the Innocence Project denied drafting the correspondence plaintiff offered as proof of the replacement cost of the confiscated papers. {¶ 4} Plaintiff responded to defendant s investigation report by insisting he owned the seized documents and the documents were truly confiscated valued at documents $335.00. were not without proper authorization. Plaintiff contraband and maintained were the destroyed Plaintiff denied he disobeyed a direct order to remove all legal material from the TCI chapel. Plaintiff related he did remove all legal material from the TCI chapel he was ordered to remove. Plaintiff asserted he is entitled to all damages claimed. {¶ 5} The credibility of witnesses and the weight attributable to their testimony are primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus. The court is free to believe or disbelieve, all or any part of each witness s testimony. 176 Ohio St. 61. State v. Antill (1964), The court does not find plaintiff s assertions regarding ownership and replacement cost of the confiscated documents to be particularly persuasive. {¶ 6} Plaintiff property in has which he no right cannot to pursue prove claim right any a of for lost 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. Beaverson v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1988), 87-02540-AD; Radford v. Department Correction (1985), 84-09071. failed to offer sufficient of Rehabilitation and In the instant claim, plaintiff proof he legitimately owned the confiscated papers. {¶ 7} It has been previously held, 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 Correctional the property Institution destruction. (1998), Berg 97-09261-AD. v. Belmont However, plaintiff must prove he was the rightful owner of the destroyed property and the destroyed items were permissible. {¶ 8} If plaintiff owned the seized papers at the time he entered the institution chapel, when plaintiff was ordered to remove legal documents from the chapel and then chose to return carrying legal documents, he effectively abandoned all ownership rights in the impermissible property. It was held that property in an inmate s possession which cannot be validated by proper indicia of ownership is contraband and consequently, no recovery is permitted when such property is confiscated. Wheaton v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1988), 88-04899-AD. 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. of Rehab. and Corr. (2001), 2000-09849-AD. denied. Zerla v. Dept. Plaintiff s claim is IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO ADAM NOBLE II : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-02838-AD DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND REHABILITATIONS : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 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: Adam Noble II, #441-492 5701 Burnett Road Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 For Defendant RDK/laa 7/27 Filed 8/17/06 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.