Griffin v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 2010 Ohio 3478 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Griffin v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 
    2010-Ohio-3478
    .]
    Court of Claims of Ohio
    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
    THERON GRIFFIN
    Plaintiff
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
    Defendant
    Case No. 2009-01671
    Judge Joseph T. Clark
    ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    {¶ 1} On May 3, 2010, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant
    to Civ.R. 56(B). On June 3, 2010, plaintiff filed a response. On June 15, 2010, the
    court conducted an oral hearing on the motion.
    {¶ 2} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:
    {¶ 3} “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
    Case No. 2009-01671                        -2-                                    ENTRY
    Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 
    104 Ohio St.3d 660
    , 
    2004-Ohio-7108
    , citing Temple v. Wean
    United, Inc. (1977), 
    50 Ohio St.2d 317
    .
    {¶ 4} At all times relevant, plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of
    defendant pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. Plaintiff alleges a claim of false imprisonment.
    According to plaintiff, he was incarcerated for a period of several weeks after
    defendant’s privilege to confine him had expired. The facts giving rise to the case are
    not disputed.
    {¶ 5} Plaintiff was sentenced to a three-year prison term and upon release from
    custody, he was subject to a period of postrelease control. The Eighth District Court of
    Appeals subsequently ruled that the sentencing court failed to adequately inform plaintiff
    that he was subject to postrelease control and the case was remanded to the trial court.
    Plaintiff was resentenced and later taken into custody based upon violations of his
    conditions of postrelease control. While in custody, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss his
    charges and on June 24, 2008, the trial court ordered his release based upon the
    holding in State v. Bezak, 
    114 Ohio St.3d 94
    , 
    2007-Ohio-3250
    .
    {¶ 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, however short.’” 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.
    {¶ 7} In order to withstand defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff
    must produce some evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue of fact as to
    each of the elements of a claim of false imprisonment: expiration of the lawful term,
    intentional confinement after the expiration; and knowledge that the privilege initially
    justifying confinement no longer exists. Bennett, supra; Corder v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab.
    & Corr. (1994), 
    94 Ohio App.3d 315
    . However, “an action for false imprisonment cannot
    be maintained where the wrong complained of is imprisonment in accordance with the
    judgment or order of a court, unless it appear[s] that such judgment or order is void.”
    Case No. 2009-01671                         -3-                                    ENTRY
    Bennett at 111, citing Brinkman v. Drolesbaugh (1918), 
    97 Ohio St. 171
    , paragraphs
    five and six of the syllabus and Johns v. State (1981), 
    67 Ohio St.2d 325
    , paragraph
    one of the syllabus, certiorari denied (1982), 
    455 U.S. 944
    .
    {¶ 8} In support of the motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted the
    affidavit of Debra Hearns, an employee of defendant and the Deputy Superintendent of
    Field Services at the Adult Parole Authority. Hearns’ affidavit states, in pertinent part,
    as follows:
    {¶ 9} “2. On July 15, 2008, we received an entry ordering the release of Theron
    Griffin. Prior to that time we had no entry ordering Griffin’s release.
    {¶ 10} “3. We released him the very next day on July 16, 2008.”
    {¶ 11} According to the affidavit of Richard Neff, plaintiff’s counsel in his criminal
    case, soon after the June 24, 2008 order was issued, Neff attempted to secure plaintiff’s
    release by contacting the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Department and Audrey Tidmore,
    plaintiff’s parole officer. On an unspecified date, Neff also notified Tidmore’s supervisor
    of the court’s order. Plaintiff asserts that Neff’s oral communications provided sufficient
    notice to defendant that the privilege initially justifying the confinement no longer
    existed. The court disagrees.
    {¶ 12} The Tenth District Court of Appeals has held that defendant “had no
    discretion to release an inmate until it received an entry indicating [it] no longer was
    privileged or justified in confining the inmate.” Trice v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr.,
    Franklin App. No 07AP-828, 
    2008-Ohio-1371
    , ¶19. The evidence shows that plaintiff
    was promptly released within one day after defendant received the judgment entry from
    the sentencing court.
    {¶ 13} Upon consideration of the arguments and the evidence presented by the
    parties, the court finds that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that defendant is
    entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary
    judgment is GRANTED and judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are
    Case No. 2009-01671                                  -4-                              ENTRY
    assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment
    and its date of entry upon the journal.
    _____________________________________
    JOSEPH T. CLARK
    Judge
    cc:
    Peter E. DeMarco                                      Robert J. Zavesky
    Assistant Attorney General                            Thomas J. Vozar
    150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor                       Rockefeller Bldg., Suite 1425
    Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130                             614 Superior Avenue NW
    Cleveland, Ohio 44113-9850
    AMR/cmd
    Filed July 7, 2010/To S.C. reporter July 22, 2010
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2009-01671

Citation Numbers: 2010 Ohio 3478

Judges: Clark

Filed Date: 7/7/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014