Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kevin Hughley v. Southeastern Correctional Institution

September 12, 2011

KEVIN HUGHLEY
PLAINTIFF
v.
SOUTHEASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
DEFENDANT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr.

Cite as

Hughley v. Southeastern Corr. Inst.,

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

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

{¶1} On January 20, 2011, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B). On January 26, 2011, plaintiff filed a response and a crossmotion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(A). On January 28, 2011, plaintiff filed a second response to defendant's motion for summary judgment. On February 2, 2011, defendant filed a response to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. On March 23, 2011, a non-oral hearing was held on the cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D).*fn1

{¶2} As an initial matter, on March 24, 2011, plaintiff filed a "motion to amend summary judgment request via granted amendment of complaint." On March 29, 2011, defendant filed a motion to strike plaintiff's March 24, 2011 motion. On April 4, 2011, plaintiff filed a response. A review of plaintiff's amended complaint does not reveal any new operative facts or additional claims for relief that would justify an amendment to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to amend is DENIED and defendant's motion to strike is GRANTED.

{¶3} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:

{¶4} "Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor." See also Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317.

{¶5} Plaintiff was formerly an inmate in the custody and control of defendant pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. Plaintiff alleges that defendant was without legal authority to confine him inasmuch as convictions of misdemeanor offenses must be served in jail rather than prison pursuant to R.C. 2929.26(D).

{¶6} "False imprisonment occurs when a person confines another intentionally 'without lawful privilege and against his consent within a limited area for any appreciable time * * *.'" Bennett v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 107, 109, quoting Feliciano v. Kreiger (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 69, 71. The elements of a false imprisonment claim are: 1) expiration of the lawful term of confinement; 2) intentional confinement after the expiration; and 3) knowledge that the privilege initially justifying the confinement no longer exists. Corder v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 315, 318.

{¶7} In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant filed the affidavit of Melissa Adams, who states:

{¶8} "1. I am the Chief of the Bureau of Sentence Computation (BOSC) of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("DRC") and have held this position for one year. My job duties include but are not limited to direct responsibility for the BOSC, direct supervision of 45 staff members, review of sentence computations to ensure accuracy and compliance with Ohio law, monitor, review and enforce BOSC policies, develop procedures relevant to inmate records, and oversee the training for BOSC staff.

{ΒΆ9} "2. I have personal knowledge and I am competent to testify to the facts ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.