Gibson v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr.
| Decision Date | 11 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2019-01160JD |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 1028 |
| Parties | REGINALD GIBSON Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Claims |
Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/29/22
DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE
SCOTT SHEETS MAGISTRATE
{¶1} Plaintiff Reginald Gibson (plaintiff) is an inmate in defendant's custody. Plaintiff seeks recovery for injuries he alleges were sustained after his cellmate assaulted him on August 15, 2018. Trial took place remotely on November 8, 2021. In addition to plaintiff, Joanna Factor Deputy Warden Corey Foster, Brenda Guice, Sergeant Matthew Giddens (Sgt. Giddens), Ira Collier (Mr. Collier), Lieutenant Michael Ledesma (Lt. Ledesma), and Stephanie Dysert, all employees of defendant, testified. In addition, several exhibits were admitted into evidence including plaintiffs institutional medical records and records generated as part of defendant's investigation of the incident. For the following reasons, the magistrate hereby recommends judgment for plaintiff.
{¶2} The magistrate makes the following factual findings. Plaintiff is an inmate in defendant's custody. During July and August of 2018, and while housed at defendant's Allen-Oakwood Correctional Institution (AOCI), plaintiff shared a cell with another inmate, Byron Harrington (Mr Harrington). On August 15, 2018, plaintiff and Mr. Harrington were in their cell when they got into a fight. Defendant investigated the incident and both inmates were found guilty of rules infractions for fighting by the institution's Rules Infraction Board (RIB). Plaintiff's testimony and multiple exhibits generated as part of defendant's investigation corroborate these facts. Several of defendant's employees including Sgt. Giddens testified that they became aware of the fight between plaintiff and Harrington. Additionally Sgt. Giddens and Lt. Ledesma testified regarding the investigation and RIB proceedings.
{¶3} Mr. Harrington both initiated the fight and acted as the primary aggressor; he assaulted plaintiff. On August 15 2018, plaintiff sat on his bed, the top bunk in the cell he shared with Mr. Harrington, while he wrote with a pen and paper. Mr. Harrington aggressively approached plaintiff, grabbed plaintiffs leg, and pulled plaintiff off the top bunk. While falling, plaintiff scratched Mr. Harrington's neck with a pen with which he was writing. Plaintiff restrained Mr. Harrington before Mr. Harrington pushed plaintiff who hit his head at some point during the altercation. After the fight ended, plaintiff alerted a corrections officer to what had occurred and both men were separated and handcuffed. Plaintiff testified to the assault and the magistrate finds his testimony credible as to the facts set forth above. Plaintiff was the only witness with first-hand knowledge who testified regarding Harrington's assault on him. In addition, plaintiff's testimony is substantially consistent with the version of events he provided to Sgt. Giddens, during the latter's interview of him after the incident, as reflected in Exhibit A and in the conduct report, Exhibit I. Plaintiff's testimony is also consistent with his statements at his hearing before the RIB, contained in Exhibit G.
{¶4} To the extent plaintiff injured Mr. Harrington during the latter's assault on plaintiff, plaintiff's actions were in reaction to and in defense of Mr. Harrington's assault on him. Again, plaintiff alone offered first-hand testimony regarding the assault. Though Sgt. Giddens suggested plaintiff stabbed Mr. Harrington at trial, he was not present when the assault occurred. Moreover, the opinion Sgt. Giddens offered at trial is inconsistent with the contents of Exhibit A, his interoffice communication to Deputy Warden Foster, generated as part of the investigation of the incident. It reflects plaintiff's statements to Sgt. Giddens during the investigation. They are consistent with the facts to which plaintiff testified at trial, specifically that plaintiff scraped or scratched Mr. Harrington with his pen while being pulled off the top bunk. Exhibit A also contains Sgt. Giddens' opinion, formed at the time of the investigation, that Harrington acted as the aggressor on the day of the assault.
{¶5} Prior to the assault, plaintiff, on at least three occasions spoke to Sgt. Giddens and/or Mr. Collier regarding hostility between he and Mr. Harrington. Plaintiff requested that he be moved to a different cell. Plaintiff testified that he spoke to Mr. Collier and Sgt. Giddens several times in July and August of 2018 about Mr. Harrington threatening him. Exhibit G, plaintiffs statement to the RIB regarding the assault, is consistent with plaintiff's testimony at trial. Exhibit A, which Sgt. Giddens prepared, indicates that he spoke to plaintiff in July of 2018 regarding issues the latter was having with Mr. Harrington, that he directed plaintiff to speak to Mr. Collier and that Mr. Collier spoke to both plaintiff and Mr. Harrington about the situation. Exhibit A also states that on August 15, 2018, the day of the assault, plaintiff sought out Sgt. Giddens because, per plaintiff, he and Mr. Harrington were still not getting along and because Mr. Harrington was "still talking crazy to him." On the day of the assault, plaintiff sent a kite to Mr. Collier regarding the "volatile situation" between he and Mr. Harrington. Though Mr. Collier indicated he did not see this kite on the day of the incident, the kite does corroborate the fact that plaintiff spoke to Mr. Giddens on the day of the assault. Finally, though both Sgt. Giddens and Mr. Collier could not recall the specific number of times they spoke with plaintiff, they also could not deny that he did speak to them on at least three occasions as corroborated by the exhibits cited above.
{¶6} Mr. Harrington also had a history of hostility toward other inmates and staff. Plaintiff and Sgt. Giddens both offered testimony on this fact. Sgt. Giddens' statements in Exhibit A regarding Mr. Harrington's history are consistent with his opinion offered at trial that Mr. Harrington was a "hot-head."
{¶7} As a result of Mr. Harrington's assault, plaintiff suffered a bump on his head, an abrasion to his left shoulder, a small laceration on his right shoulder, and a scratch on his abdomen. Plaintiff experienced temporary pain and discomfort from his injuries. Plaintiff testified to hitting his head. Plaintiffs medical records from AOCI, specifically Exhibits C and D, reflect these physical injuries were present when he was examined immediately after the assault. Plaintiff experienced temporary pain and discomfort from these injuries including a headache.
{¶8} Shortly after the incident, Plaintiff sought and received treatment for migraine headaches. Plaintiff continued to receive treatment for migraine headaches after his release from defendant's custody and continued to experience migraines. However, plaintiff failed to prove that Mr Harrington's assault caused his migraine headaches or otherwise caused injuries to plaintiff that are permanent, chronic, or continuing. Plaintiff testified that he experiences continuing migraine headaches that began after the assault, that he continues to receive treatment, and that he is prescribed Imitrex for his headaches. In addition, plaintiff's institutional medical records, Exhibit J, reflect treatment for migraine headaches, including the use of the prescription medication Imitrex. However, only plaintiff attributed these headaches to the assault, specifically citing the fact that he hit his head during the assault. Plaintiff is not a doctor and his opinion regarding the cause of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial