Perry v. S. Ohio Correctional Facility
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Perry v. S. Ohio Correctional Facility, 2007-Ohio-3859.]
Court of Claims of Ohio
The Ohio Judicial Center
65 South Front Street, Third Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263
www.cco.state.oh.us
MARQUISE PERRY
Plaintiff
Case No. 2006-06787
Judge J. Craig Wright
Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo
v.
MAGISTRATE DECISION
SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, et al.
Defendants
{¶1}
On November 27, 2006, defendants filed a motion for partial dismissal of
plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Plaintiff did not file a response. On
January 18, 2007, an oral hearing was held at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
(SOCF) on defendants’ motion.
{¶2}
In construing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), the court must
presume that all factual allegations of the complaint are true and make all reasonable
inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988), 40 Ohio
St.3d 190. Then, before the court may dismiss the complaint, it must appear beyond doubt
that plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery. O’Brien v. University
Community Tenants Union (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242.
{¶3}
At all times relevant to this action plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and
control of defendants at SOCF pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. Plaintiff asserts that defendants’
employees violated Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) Special
Management Procedure 55-SPC-02. Specifically, plaintiff claims that he did not receive
regularly scheduled visits from defendants’ employees Major Warren, SOCF Warden
Edwin Voorhies, James Goodman, Cynthia Davis, Matthew Stuntebeck, an unidentified
qualified health care professional, an unidentified deputy warden, an unidentified senior
correctional supervisor, and the “P.A.M.” Plaintiff also claims that his meals were not
Case No. 2006-06787
-2-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
served in accordance with DRC policy. Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendants’ employees
used excessive force while restraining him.
{¶4}
Defendants argue that implementation of the policies cited in plaintiff’s
complaint involves a high degree of official discretion and that, therefore, defendants and
their employees are immune from liability.
{¶5}
The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[t]he language in R.C. 2743.02
that ‘the state’ shall ‘have its liability determined *** in accordance with the same rules of
law applicable to suits between private parties ***’ means that the state cannot be sued for
its legislative or judicial functions or the exercise of an executive or planning function
involving the making of a basic policy decision which is characterized by the exercise of a
high degree of official judgment or discretion.” Reynolds v. State (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 68,
70; Van Hoene v. State
(1985), 20 Ohio App.3d 363, 364.
Additionally, “[p]rison
regulations *** are primarily designed to guide correctional officials in prison administration
rather than to confer rights on inmates.” State ex rel. Larkins v. Wilkinson, 79 Ohio St.3d
477, 479, 1997-Ohio-139. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims based upon alleged violations of
internal DRC policies must fail.
{¶6}
Furthermore, to the extent that plaintiff claims violations of his civil and
constitutional rights, it is well-settled that such claims are not actionable in the Court of
Claims. See Thompson v. Southern State Community College (June 15, 1989), Franklin
App. No. 89AP-114; Burkey v. Southern Ohio Corr. Facility (1988), 38 Ohio App.3d 170.
{¶7}
Based upon the foregoing analysis, it is recommended that defendants’
motion be granted and that judgment be rendered in favor of defendants on the
above-referenced claims. Plaintiff’s claim alleging excessive use of force is the only claim
remaining for trial.
A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision within 14 days of the
filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that 14-day
period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files objections, any other
Case No. 2006-06787
-3-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
party may also file objections not later than ten days after the first objections are filed. A
party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal
conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law
under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual
finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the filing of the decision, as required by Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(b).
_____________________________________
MATTHEW C. RAMBO
Magistrate
cc:
Marquise Perry, #488-417
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 45699
Lucasville, Ohio 45699
RCV/cmd
Filed May 17, 2007
To S.C. reporter July 30, 2007
Daniel R. Forsythe
Assistant Attorney General
150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130
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.