Landers v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr.
| Decision Date | 04 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-00718JD |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 2386 |
| Parties | CHARLES A. LANDERS, JR Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Claims |
Sent to S.C. Reporter 7/11/2022
DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE
{¶1} Plaintiff, formerly an inmate in the custody and control of defendant, brings this action alleging that on December 29 2018, employees of defendant at Franklin Medical Center (FMC) injured him in an incident that amounted to excessive use of force.
{¶2} Upon defendant's motion, this matter came on for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether former corrections officer Korday R. Allison, former corrections officer Jovan Cason, and former corrections officer Paris C. Love are entitled to civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F), so that it may be determined whether jurisdiction over the merits of the case rests with the Court of Claims or the courts of common pleas.
{¶3} On December 29, 2018, plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of defendant at FMC. On that day, Allison confiscated plaintiff's cigarette. Although cigarettes are not allowed at FMC, Allison let the inmates smoke. Plaintiff previously provided Allison with a honey bun and a pop to be allowed to smoke, but on that day, plaintiff did not give Allison a honey bun and a pop. Allison confiscated plaintiff's cigarette and gave it to another inmate causing plaintiff to be upset. Plaintiff believed it to be unfair that Allison allowed other inmates to smoke but did not allow him to smoke. This encounter occurred on the upstairs range of the housing unit.
{¶4} The following is recorded on defendant's video surveillance system. Defendant's Exhibit A plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Approximately five minutes after Allison confiscated plaintiffs cigarette, plaintiff slowly walks behind the officer's station on the first floor of the housing unit, also known as the dayroom. Plaintiff is holding a radio, which he described to be similar to an mp3 player with controls like a cell phone. Both plaintiffs hands are gripping the radio as seen on the video. Allison, who is wearing a black hat, enters the frame and walks around the opposite side of the officer's station. Allison's hands are in his pockets, and he walks directly to plaintiff. Allison and plaintiff appear to be engaging in a conversation. Plaintiff reports that Allison called him a "pussy bitch." Plaintiff points his finger and appears to be upset. Plaintiff remarked at trial that he told Allison that he thought it was "messed up" that Allison confiscated his cigarette but allowed other inmates to smoke. At this point, three other corrections officers, including Cason and Love exit the officer's station and approach Allison and plaintiff. Allison turns around and appears to acknowledge their presence. The third unidentified corrections officer continues walking around the officer's station out of the view of the surveillance camera. Allison is inches from plaintiff's face, and plaintiff appears to be backed up against a wall. Approximately a dozen other inmates are present in the dayroom, and all the inmates seem to turn their attention to the confrontation involving plaintiff.
{¶5} The group moves slightly to the left of view on the camera. The officer's station largely obscures the view of what occurs next; nevertheless, the evidence established that Allison initially struck plaintiff and that Cason and Love joined the fracas immediately thereafter. Through the windows of the officer's station, plaintiff is seen falling toward the telephones on the back wall. Plaintiff appears to attempt to stabilize himself only to fall again with a corrections officer on top of him. The corrections officers appear to struggle with plaintiff while he is on the ground.
{¶6} Plaintiff subsequently attempts to escape toward the exercise equipment as the group emerges from behind the officer's station and back into view of the camera. Allison follows, eventually tackling plaintiff to the ground. Cason and Love quickly follow behind. Cason appears to strike plaintiff in the head/neck. Allison, who is no longer wearing a hat, picks up a blue chair and hits plaintiff with the chair while plaintiff is on the ground. As plaintiff attempts to get back up off the ground, Love pushes plaintiff in the back down to the ground. Allison then swings his fist at plaintiffs head. Allison and Love jointly push plaintiff back to the ground as plaintiff again attempts to get up. Allison and Cason both appear to strike plaintiff while plaintiff is on the ground. Cason then grabs plaintiff from behind and Allison again strikes plaintiff. Cason picks plaintiff up off the ground, and along with Love, throws plaintiff to the ground. Allison then appears to kick plaintiff in the face. As plaintiff is again attempting to stand up, Allison pushes plaintiffs face down on the edge of the pool table. Plaintiff then stands up, and Allison walks away. Plaintiff then leaves the dayroom. The physical altercation lasts approximately one minute as shown on the video time stamp.
{¶7} At no point do any of the corrections officers attempt to place handcuffs on plaintiff, and at no point during the altercation do any of the corrections officers activate their man down alarms. Allison activated the man down alarm well after the altercation concluded. After plaintiff left the dayroom, he sat on a bench where he was subsequently handcuffed and escorted to the captain's office rather than to medical. Plaintiff later completed an "inmate confidential statement" wherein he documented the events. Defendant's Exhibit K.
{¶8} Allison had been a corrections officer for nearly four years as of December 29, 2018. Prior to beginning his employment, Allison completed a two-week officer's training, which included training on the use of force. Allison also completed annual officer's training. Prior to this incident, Allison had never completed an incident report regarding the use of force.
{¶9} On December 29, 2018, Allison was assigned to Dorm 2 of FMC as a regular corrections officer. Allison previously had no issues or problems with plaintiff prior to that day. Allison caught plaintiff with a cigarette, and as one of his job duties, he confiscated plaintiffs cigarette. According to Allison, plaintiff was saying "crazy stuff after he confiscated the cigarette.
{¶10} Allison maintained that he approached plaintiff in the dayroom to deescalate the situation. Allison reported that plaintiff used explicit language causing him to fear for his own personal safety. Allison acknowledged, however, that he did not activate his man down alarm at this time. Allison stated that plaintiff refused to obey prison orders, rules, and regulations, and that plaintiff would not "cuff up." Allison maintained that plaintiff made a sudden move that caused him to believe he was at risk of harm, that plaintiffs hands were in his pockets, and at that point Allison began to protect himself. Allison denied coordinating the use of force on plaintiff with Cason and Love and maintained that it was their job to back him up in the confrontation. After the use of force, Allison did not attempt to place handcuffs on plaintiff. Allison explained that after the use of force, he felt like he was going to "pass out."
{¶11} Allison authored an incident report following the use of force and participated in an administrative investigation regarding the incident. Defendant's Exhibits B and G. Cason and Love also completed incident reports following the use of force and participated in an administrative investigation regarding this event. Defendant's Exhibits C, D, I, and J. Allison's, Cason's, and Love's employment was subsequently terminated, and they thereafter plead guilty to criminal dereliction of duty. Defendant's Exhibits O, P, Q, and U.
{¶12} Greg Harris is employed with defendant at FMC as an investigator. Harris acts as a liaison between defendant and the Ohio State Highway Patrol investigating anything that could lead to criminal charges, including the use of force by staff. Harris gathered incident reports, medial examination reports, inmate statements; conducted interviews; and reviewed video of the use of force. Corrections officers are trained to deescalate a situation; to remove oneself from a situation if necessary; to allow another corrections officer to talk if warranted; not to raise their voices; and to call for assistance. Regarding the use of force policy, corrections officers should use the least amount of force necessary to control a situation beginning with an order to cuff up. If refused, then chemical mace may be used. If that does not gain compliance, then the least amount of physical force to control the situation may be used. The use of force does not include stomping, chair throwing, or punching in the face. Harris explained that Cason was a probationary officer undergoing on-the-job training by Love. Harris stated that it is Love's responsibility to ensure Cason has the necessary equipment including handcuffs, which Cason did not have that day. Leah Bobb-itt and James Hogon both authenticated several of the exhibits that were used at the hearing.
{¶13} "In accordance with R.C. 2743.02(F), the Court of Claims 'has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a state employee is immune from liability under R.C. 9.86.'" Nix v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist Franklin No. 13AP-547, 2014-Ohio-2902, ¶ 22, quoting Johns v. Univ. of Cincinnati Med. Assocs., 101 Ohio St.3d 234, 2004-Ohio-824, syllabus. There is no dispute that Allison, Cason, and Love were at all times relevant state employees.
{¶14} R.C. 9.86 states, in part:
{¶15} "Except for...
To continue reading
Request your trial