RITTNER v. Barber

435 F. Supp. 2d 682, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42559, 2006 WL 1735162
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio
DecidedJune 23, 2006
Docket3:06 CV 973
StatusPublished

This text of 435 F. Supp. 2d 682 (RITTNER v. Barber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
RITTNER v. Barber, 435 F. Supp. 2d 682, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42559, 2006 WL 1735162 (N.D. Ohio 2006).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

KATZ, District Judge.

On April 20, 2006, plaintiff pro se Daniel L. Rittner, Sr. filed the above-captioned action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio (“CCNO”), CCNO Vice Chairman James Barber, CCNO Director Jim Dennis, CCNO Inmate Programs Manager Linda Shambarger, CCNO Education Instructor Donald Donaldson, CCNO Director Scott Bradbee, CCNO Director Sullivan, CCNO Accreditation Supervisor Jenny Tornes, CCNO Inspector Tom Clay, CCNO Corrections Officer Mike Vaughn, Allen Correctional Institution (“ACI”) Unit Manager Leslie Kinder, Fulton County Commissioner Paul Barnaby, Fulton County Commissioner Dean Genter, Fulton County Commissioner Jack Graf, and “other unknown *683 persons, officers, agents, servants, employee, attorneys or the agency the defendants represent.” (Compl. at 3.) In the complaint, Mr. Rittner raises multiple concerns about his treatment at CCNO. He seeks unspecified compensatory, and punitive damages.

Background

Mr. Rittner lists numerous complaints relating to the conditions of his confinement. He claims:

1. CCNO meals were not nutritious. He refers to them without explanation as a “starvation diet.” (Compl. at 7.)
2. He was denied outdoor recreation until April 17, 2004.
3. Corrections Officer “Pam” harassed him for assisting an inmate with legal work.
4. Pam refused to sharpen his pencils in June 2004.
5. Pam threatened him a second time for assisting an inmate with legal work.
6. Pam searched his cell and confiscated food which he claims was medically necessary.
7. His cell was searched while he was at the law library.
8. Pam would not give him privacy to talk to the nurse.
9. He was classified as a maximum security prisoner and was denied a security classification reduction by ACI Unit Manager Kinder.
10. Medical screenings can take place “in specific instances at 0130 hrs and 0400 hrs, as found in nurse screening forms found by plaintiff.” (Compl. at 8.)
11. Inmates are forced to stand for a count three times per day.
12. Maintenance was performed at night on two occasions.
13. Trustees are permitted to be out late at night and are sometimes loud.
14. He was denied writing paper by Corrections Officer Vaughn.
15. “Inmates are continually awakened throughout the day and forced to acknowledge all inquiries by staff no matter how trivial.” (Compl. at 9.)
16. Mr. Rittner was placed in segregation for refusing to stand for count.
17. He was placed in restraints to be taken to segregation which Mr. Rittner believes was excessive force.
18. The resulting disciplinary hearing was a sham.
19. He was denied a Bible, a drinking cup, a pencil, and reading material when he was in segregation from April 23, 2004 to April 25, 2004.
20. Corrections Officer Pat would not inventory his legal materials prior to taking him to segregation.
21. Indigent inmates are not provided with sufficient personal hygiene items.
22. The cell walls are stained with body fluids and are not sanitized before inmates are placed in the cell.
23. Undergarments are reissued to inmates and some of these are stained.
24. From January 2004 until April 2004, the unit was extremely cold.
25. Inmates were not permitted to use blankets in the day or common areas.
26. Inmates were denied the use of towels on which to sit on the bleachers.
*684 27. He was denied the ability to possess first class embossed envelopes for his personal use.
28. Mail from the United States District Court was withheld by Linda Shambarger on June 11, 2004 at the direction of Mr. Dennis.
29. Personal communications to the chaplain, the staff psychologist and medical services are not kept confidential.
30. The law library is cold and consists only of the Ohio Revised Code and six reference books.
31. He was not given sufficient time in GED class to use the typewriter.
32. The GED class was very cold and it was difficult to type. The class room was occasionally disrupted by inmates.
33. Mr. Donaldson handed out typing paper only one page at a time and limited the number of pages that could be typed in an hour to four.
34. Mr. Donaldson threatened to deny plaintiff the use of the typewriter on November 21, 2004.
35. Mr. Donaldson threatened to deny plaintiff the use of the typewriter on July 22, 2004.
36. “In a ‘memo’ plaintiff received from Donaldson he denies plaintiff personal mail.” (Compl. at 13.)
37. He reported chest pains to the nurse on December 12, 2004 and did not receive appropriate care.
38. He requested medical care in November 2004 for a sore on the inside of his lip, a stomach ache, fatigue, and migraines. He repeated his request on December 4, 2004. He contends no medical treatment was provided.
39. He was denied outside recreation by Mr. Dennis in retaliation for filing grievances concerning recreation.
40. Inmate Campbell assaulted other inmates and was continually returned to general population.
41. Ms. Shambarger took pictures of him in the library and in the GED classroom.
42. The inmates in the “EM Unit” were continually out of control and loud but were not disciplined by the staff.
43. A bus on which he was transported for an outside medical appointment was not heated.
44. He was derided for asking Unit Manager Kinder about the grievance process on January 7, 2004.
45. Ms. Kinder “became hostile when plaintiff complained about lost newspapers taken by other inmates.” (Compl. at 15.)
46. He was not allowed free time out of his cell after spending the day at court if the inmates in his unit were not on free time rotation.
47.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
435 F. Supp. 2d 682, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42559, 2006 WL 1735162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rittner-v-barber-ohnd-2006.