Plaintiff, Calvin Alexander, an inmate, filed a complaint
against defendant Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction ("ODRC"), seeking damages in the amount
of $1, 240.60. The court waived the $25.00 filing fee.
Plaintiffs complaint asserts that, while housed at ODRC's
Trumbull Correctional Institution ("TCI"), he went
to work at the institution's barber shop, after which
ODRC placed him in segregation. Plaintiff further asserts
that "C/O's lost my property" and "are
responsible for my property being stolen."
Plaintiff seeks recovery for the following items at the
indicated value: 1) tennis shoes at $78.62; 2) tennis shoes
at $73.66; 3) clothe box at $542.94; 4) another clothe box
(t.v.) at $322.33; 5) fan at $23.00; 6) J5 player at $120.00;
7) digital antenna at $20.00; 8) clippers at $35.00; and 9)
headphones at $25.00. The total for these items is $1,
Plaintiff submitted two invoices from Union Supply Direct
with his complaint, one dated December1, 2015 and the other
dated December 2, 2015. The December 1, 2015 invoice lists a
Clear Tunes 15" television at a price of $216.95.
Plaintiffs name does not appear anywhere on the December 1,
2015 invoice. The December 2, 2015 invoice also lists the
same television as listed on the December 1, 2015 invoice.
The December 2, 2015 invoice appears to contain plaintiffs
signature with his inmate number and the date of December 4,
2015 handwritten next to it.
The totals of the clothing items listed on the two Union
Supply Direct invoices match the totals that plaintiff places
on his "clothe" boxes. However, other than both
listing a television, the invoices do not list any of the
other specific items for which plaintiff seeks recovery. Both
invoices contain a box entitled "CUSTOMER #." The
number within these boxes is different on each invoice.
Plaintiff submitted a packing slip from Access Securepak
which lists an order date of November 29, 2015 and a single
item, a pair of size 11 Nike tennis shoes, totaling $73.66.
The packing slip indicated that an individual named Tenika
Wall placed the order. Plaintiffs name does not appear
anywhere on the packing slip. At the bottom of the Access
Securepak packing slip, there is a line titled "received
by" next to a line titled "date." Both lines
Plaintiff submitted a sales order receipt from
Walkenhorst's dated May 31, 2016. It lists a single pair
of size 11 Nike tennis shoes, totaling $78.62. At the top of
the Walkenhorst's receipt, plaintiffs name and inmate
number are printed in handwriting. Plaintiffs signature
appears to be at the bottom of the receipt along with
plaintiffs inmate number.
The signature on the December 2, 2015 Union Supply Direct
invoice is very similar to the signature appearing at the
bottom of the May 31, 2016 Walkenhorst's receipt.
Plaintiff does not explain the term "clothe box."
Plaintiff does not offer any explanation regarding the
documents he submitted in support of his claim including the
fact that his name and/or signature appears on some of the
documents but not others. Plaintiff does not explain the
difference between the customer numbers that appear on the
Union Supply Direct invoices and does not explain why these
two invoices, dated on consecutive days, indicate he ordered
the same television twice in a two-day period. As to the
Access Securepak packing slip, plaintiff does not offer any
explanation regarding the individual who appears to have
placed the order, Tenika Wall.
Plaintiff asserts he exhausted his administrative remedies to
no avail. Plaintiff provided copies of his appeal to the
chief inspector, a notification of grievance, and informal
complaint resolution all related to his allegedly missing
property. The earliest of these documents, the informal
complaint resolution, is dated March 19, 2017. Plaintiffs
appeal to the chief inspector, dated May 4, 2017, makes clear
that plaintiff believes staff failed to secure his cell after
placing him in segregation. The notification of grievance,
dated April 10, 2017, references some items as missing that
are not listed in plaintiffs complaint as well as some that
are listed in the complaint. The same is true for the March
19, 2017 informal complaint resolution.
Plaintiff provided an inmate property record dated June 12,
2015 that was completed at the time of his transfer to TCI.
The only item of property that appears on the inmate property
record for which plaintiff seeks recovery here are
headphones, for which plaintiff has produced no receipt.
Plaintiff also provided an inmate property record dated
February 23, 2017, which notes plaintiff refused to sign it
and certify its accuracy. The only item for which plaintiff
seeks recovery that also appeared on the February 23, 2017
inmate property record is a pair of headphones.
Plaintiff also provided four copies of responses to kites.
The earliest indicated it is responsive to plaintiffs kite of
February 27, 2017and ...