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.

Alexander v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Court of Claims of Ohio

April 30, 2018

CALVIN ALEXANDER Plaintiff
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant

          MEMORANDUM DECISION

         FINDINGS OF FACT

         {¶1} 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.

         {¶2} 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."

         {¶3} 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, 240.55.

         {¶4} 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.

         {¶5} 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.

         {¶6} 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 are blank.

         {¶7} 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.

         {¶8} 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.

         {¶9} 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.

         {¶10} 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.

         {¶11} 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.

         {¶12} 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.

         {¶13} Plaintiff also provided four copies of responses to kites. The earliest indicated it is responsive to plaintiffs kite of February 27, 2017and ...


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.