Opinion
No. 2006-05047-AD.
March 29, 2007.
MEMORANDUM DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT
{¶ 1} On April 11, 2006, plaintiff, Quian R. Britford, an inmate incarcerated at defendant, Pickaway Correctional Institution ("PCI"), was transferred from PCI to the Lake Erie Correctional Institution ("LaECI"). Plaintiffs personal property was forwarded from PCI to LaECI incident to the transfer. However, plaintiff pointed out that not all of his personal property was sent to LaECI. Plaintiff asserted specific items of "legal work" were held at PCI due to the fact that all the property he possessed exceeded defendant's volume restrictions for inmate property.
{¶ 2} Plaintiff related that he was informed by PCI staff that he was required to authorize the mailing of his withheld legal work. Plaintiff explained that he filled out a cash slip to have postage paid for the mailing of the legal work, but later discovered that the property was not mailed because of insufficient funds available in plaintiffs inmate account to cover postage. The legal work apparently remained in the possession of PCI personnel until June 6, 2006 when the material was sent from PCI to LaECI and then forwarded to plaintiff.
{¶ 3} Plaintiff contended that the acts and omissions by PCI employees depriving him of his legal materials constituted violations of his constitutional rights, specifically the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff stated that his access to the courts was blocked by the fact that he did not have certain legal papers in his possession for a period of approximately two months. Plaintiff consequently filed this complaint seeking to recover $2,500.00, for "mental anguish, emotional distress, and physical discomfort," which he recalled that he experienced when he was deprived of possessing his legal documents. Plaintiff was not required to pay a filing fee to pursue this action.
{¶ 4} Defendant acknowledged plaintiffs property was packed on April 10, 2006, in preparation for transfer from PCI to LaECI. Defendant also acknowledged that some of plaintiffs, "legal work could not be transferred because it would not fit into his locker box." Plaintiff was given the opportunity to authorize the mailing of this excess property from PCI to his home. Defendant denied receiving any cash slip from plaintiff authorizing postage for the mailing of his excess property. Defendant explained that plaintiffs account at PCI had "been closed upon his transfer" and therefore, funds were not available to cover postage for mailing legal papers. After extended communication between plaintiff and PCI personnel, the excess legal materials were shipped to plaintiff at LaECI on June 6, 2006. Defendant asserted LaECI staff confirmed that plaintiff received the shipped legal materials. Defendant denied any liability in this matter in connection with the handling of plaintiffs legal work. Defendant argued that plaintiff has failed to prove any delay in his receipt of legal work caused him any damage.
{¶ 5} In his response, plaintiff insisted that the acts of PCI personnel in depriving him of legal material violated his constitution rights. Plaintiff recalled that a fraction of his legal work was forwarded from PCI to LaECI on or about August 11, 2006. Plaintiff observed that not all his legal materials were shipped and some property is missing. It is unclear whether plaintiff is attempting to amend his complaint to include actual property loss. Defendant's position is that all property held at PCI was eventually shipped to LaECI.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
{¶ 6} This court in Mullett v. Department of Correction (1976), 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} 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} 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} 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), 85-01546-AD.
{¶ 10} 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 v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1998), 97-10146-AD.
{¶ 11} This court does not recognize any entitlement to damages for mental distress and extraordinary damages for allegations of 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. Plaintiff's claims for mental anguish, emotional distress, and physical discomfort are denied. See Waver v. Ohio Department of Corrections (2006), 2006-02960-AD.
{¶ 12} Plaintiff himself filed this claim seeking redress for alleged violations of his constitutional rights under First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, plaintiff's claim, based on alleged violations of his constitutional rights is dismissed. This court lacks jurisdiction to hear a claim to the extent it asserts constitutional violations. Gersper v. Ohio Dept. of Hwy. Safety (1994), 95 Ohio App. 3d 1.
{¶ 13} The issues grounded in plaintiffs action involve denial and delay in due process for a property deprivation. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over alleged violations of constitutional rights and claims arising under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S. Code. Bleicher v. Univ. of Cincinnati (1992), 78 Ohio App. 3d 302. In the instant claim plaintiff chose the wrong forum to pursue this action. See Platz v. Noble Correctional Institution (2001), 2001-02210-AD; Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. Corr, 2002-10984-AD, 2003-Ohio-3891.
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.