Vargas v. Ohio State Penitentiary
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Vargas v. Ohio State Penitentiary, 2006-Ohio-7251.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO RICHARD VARGAS : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-03036-AD OHIO STATE PENITENTIARY : MEMORANDUM DECISION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On December 21, 2005, employees of defendant, Ohio State Penitentiary ( OSP ), conducted a shakedown search, including the cell of plaintiff, Richard Vargas, an inmate. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff asserted his television set was damaged by OSP staff during the course of the shakedown search. Plaintiff related he discovered his television set laying screen side down against the metal springs and iron cross bars of his bunk. Plaintiff explained the channel changing buttons on the set were pressed in and would not work properly. {¶ 3} 3) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $130.00, the replacement cost of a new television set. The television set plaintiff owns was purchased in 1999 at a cost of $130.00. The filing fee was paid. {¶ 4} 4) Defendant denied plaintiff s television was damaged during a December 21, 2005, shakedown search. the on/off button on the television unidentified sticky substance. was Defendant stated, stuck due to an Defendant asserted other than Case No. 2006-03036-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION this problem the set is in proper working order and remains in plaintiff s possession. Defendant argued plaintiff has failed to prove his television set was damaged by OSP personnel. {¶ 5} 5) Plaintiff responded to defendant s investigation report insisting defendant s employees broke his television set. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 6} 1) (1976), This court in Mullett v. Department of Correction 76-0292-AD, held that defendant does not have the liability of an insurer (i.e., is not liable without fault) with respect to inmate property, but that it does have the duty to make reasonable attempts to protect, or recover such property. {¶ 7} 2) 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. {¶ 8} 3) 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. {¶ 9} 4) 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. {¶ 10} 5) Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, he sustained any loss as a result of any negligence on the part of defendant. Fitzgerald Case No. 2006-03036-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1998), 97-10146AD. {¶ 11} 6) Plaintiff has failed to show any causal connection between any damage to his television set and any breach of a duty owed by defendant in regard to protecting inmate property. Druckenmiller v. Mansfield Correctional Inst. (1998), 97-11819-AD; Melson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2003-04236-AD, 2003-Ohio-3615. Case No. 2006-03036-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO RICHARD VARGAS : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2006-03036-AD OHIO STATE PENITENTIARY : 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: Richard Vargas, #356-805 878 Coitsville-Hubbard Road Youngstown, Ohio 44505 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North For Defendant Case No. 2006-03036-AD Columbus, Ohio RDK/laa 8/1 Filed 8/17/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 43229 4/5/07 -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.
