Steward v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

Ohio Court of Claims

Steward v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

703 N.E.2d 377, 94 Ohio Misc. 2d 75, 1998 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 39

CourtOhio Court of Claims

DecidedAugust 26, 1998

DocketNo. 97-05291

StatusPublished

This text of 703 N.E.2d 377 (Steward v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steward v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, 703 N.E.2d 377, 94 Ohio Misc. 2d 75, 1998 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 39 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

FRED D. Gartin, Magistrate.

On August 3, 1998, a trial was held at the Lebanon Correctional Institution. Plaintiff Douglas K. Steward is an inmate under the custody and control of defendant pursuant to R.C. 5210.16.

[76]*76Plaintiffs complaint sets forth various allegations regarding decisions of the Rules Infraction Board and Adult Parole Board, as well as his classification within the institution.

The Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over rulings of the Rules Infraction Board. Saxton v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 389, 609 N.E.2d 245. The court also lacks jurisdiction and will not act as an appellate court for decisions of the Parole Board. Ross v. Shoemaker (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 31, 443 N.E.2d 1025. Last, the court will not interfere with the classification and placement of prisoners. Bell v. Wolfish (1979), 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447.

Plaintiff also did not prove any other claim by a preponderance of the evidence. To the contrary, plaintiff continued to argue claims over which the court lacked jurisdiction even after he was so informed by the magistrate. Plaintiff is simply dissatisfied with the institution, and his exhibits and testimony demonstrate that he has written to many government agencies to request an investigation of his claims. After being dissatisfied with the responses, he filed a lawsuit in this court requesting the court to investigate his claims. The Court of Appeals for Franklin County has held: “The Court of Claims of Ohio is not meant to be merely an avenue for inmates to vent their spleens- about whatever is -wrong in their world.” Hurst v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Dec. 24, 1991), Franklin App. No. 91AP-911, unreported, 1991 WL 274883. Additionally, the court is a neutral fact finder, and plaintiff did not offer or establish any facts entitling him to any relief. Therefore, at the conclusion of plaintiffs case, defendant’s Civ.R. 41(B)(2) motion was SUSTAINED.

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

FRED D. Gartin, Magistrate.

On August 3, 1998, a trial was held at the Lebanon Correctional Institution. Plaintiff Douglas K. Steward is an inmate under the custody and control of defendant pursuant to R.C. 5210.16.

[76]*76Plaintiffs complaint sets forth various allegations regarding decisions of the Rules Infraction Board and Adult Parole Board, as well as his classification within the institution.

The Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over rulings of the Rules Infraction Board. Saxton v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 389, 609 N.E.2d 245. The court also lacks jurisdiction and will not act as an appellate court for decisions of the Parole Board. Ross v. Shoemaker (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 31, 443 N.E.2d 1025. Last, the court will not interfere with the classification and placement of prisoners. Bell v. Wolfish (1979), 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447.

Plaintiff also did not prove any other claim by a preponderance of the evidence. To the contrary, plaintiff continued to argue claims over which the court lacked jurisdiction even after he was so informed by the magistrate. Plaintiff is simply dissatisfied with the institution, and his exhibits and testimony demonstrate that he has written to many government agencies to request an investigation of his claims. After being dissatisfied with the responses, he filed a lawsuit in this court requesting the court to investigate his claims. The Court of Appeals for Franklin County has held: “The Court of Claims of Ohio is not meant to be merely an avenue for inmates to vent their spleens- about whatever is -wrong in their world.” Hurst v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Dec. 24, 1991), Franklin App. No. 91AP-911, unreported, 1991 WL 274883. Additionally, the court is a neutral fact finder, and plaintiff did not offer or establish any facts entitling him to any relief. Therefore, at the conclusion of plaintiffs case, defendant’s Civ.R. 41(B)(2) motion was SUSTAINED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 N.E.2d 377, 94 Ohio Misc. 2d 75, 1998 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steward-v-department-of-rehabilitation-correction-ohioctcl-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack