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.

Evans v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

June 25, 2019

William H. Evans, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al., Defendants-Appellees.

          APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, No. 17CV-9206

         On brief:

          William H. Evans, Jr., pro se.

         On brief:

          Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Andrea K. Boyd.

          DECISION

          LUPER SCHUSTER, J.

         {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, William H. Evans, Jr., appeals pro se from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his complaint against defendants-appellees, Gary Mohr, director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"), Karen Stanforth, ODRC assistant chief inspector, Mark Hooks, warden of the Ross Correctional Institution ("RCI"), and Lisa Bethel, RCI healthcare administrator (collectively "appellees"). For the following reasons, we affirm.

         I. Facts and Procedural History

         {¶ 2} In October 2017, Evans, an inmate at RCI, filed a pro se complaint against appellees seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. He generally alleges his constitutional rights have been violated because he has not received a colonoscopy as recommended by an RCI healthcare professional.

         {¶ 3} In his complaint, Evans alleges the following facts. He is currently serving a prison sentence of 15 years to life. While incarcerated at RCI, a nurse practitioner advised Evans that he should undergo a colonoscopy due to suspected colon cancer. Evans was instructed that to undergo the procedure he would need to go to RCI's infirmary overnight. He requested that he be permitted to ingest the colon cleansing solution in his prison cell and then be taken to the infirmary for the procedure without having to stay overnight. His request was denied, and he then refused to transfer overnight to the infirmary in order to have the procedure. Evans contends that requiring him to stay overnight in the infirmary in order to have the colonoscopy violates his rights. He asserts that leaving his established prison cell for one night may result in him losing that cell and being placed with a new cellmate in a different housing unit. He further asserts that uprooting him from his established prison cell also may result in the loss or destruction of his personal property. Based on these circumstances, Evans has not undergone the colonoscopy procedure.

         {¶ 4} Pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), appellees moved to dismiss Evans' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In December 2018, the trial court granted appellees' motion to dismiss Evans' complaint.

         {¶ 5} Evans timely appeals.

         II. Assignment of Error

         {¶ 6} Evans assigns the following ...


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.