Magistrate Scott Sheets
DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE
{¶1} Plaintiff Douglas Haddix (plaintiff) is an inmate in defendant's custody who, during the time relevant to his complaint, resided at defendant's Warren Correctional Institution (WCI) in Lebanon, Ohio. Plaintiff seeks money damages for unspecified injuries that he alleges were sustained when defendant's employee(s) used force on him on April 2, 2018. The case proceeded to trial via Zoom videoconference. In addition to plaintiff, correction officer Justin Knick (Mr. Knick) testified. Further, the depositions of corrections officers Joshua Kasten (Mr. Kasten) and Ryan Webb (Mr. Webb) were admitted into evidence. Also admitted into evidence were a copy of the video of the incident as well as a copy of a packet of documents generated in connection with the incident. For the following reasons, the magistrate finds that plaintiff failed to prove his claims and recommends judgment in defendant's favor.
Findings of Fact
{¶2} On April 2, 2018, plaintiff was incarcerated at WCI. At that time, Mr. Webb was "locking down the block," a period during which inmates' permitted time in the dayroom area ends and inmates must return to their cells. During the process of locking the inmates' cells, Mr. Webb arrived at plaintiff's cell at which time plaintiff first used his laundry bag to prevent the door from being closed before then pushing the door open and into the direction of Mr. Webb. Plaintiff pushed the door open with enough force that the door swung all the way open and struck the adjoining wall before swinging back in the opposite direction toward Mr. Webb, at which time Mr. Webb briefly sprayed plaintiff with oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray. Mr. Webb completed a report, titled conduct report, shortly after the incident. In it, Mr. Webb indicates that he feared for his safety when plaintiff shoved the door open, leading to the use of OC spray. Plaintiff and Mr. Webb testified to the above and Exhibit D, the video, depicts the incident as well. The conduct report is contained in Exhibit H.
{¶3} Plaintiff was then taken to the ground and handcuffed with minimal force. Though corrections officers used their hands to effectuate plaintiff's handcuffing, they did not use any more OC spray or strike plaintiff. Mr. Webb and Mr. Kasten testified to the above and the video also captured this part of the incident.
{¶4} Immediately after the incident, plaintiff was examined in WCI's medical area. Plaintiff experienced temporary burning and discomfort associated with the effects of pepper spray but sustained no other injuries. Plaintiff testified to the above including the lack of injury. The corrections officers also testified plaintiff was immediately taken to the medical area.
Conclusions of Law
{¶5} To meet his burden at trial, plaintiff needed to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. As stated in Brothers v. Morrone-O'Keefe Dev. Co., LLC, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-713, 2007-Ohio-1942, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 1762, ¶ 49: "[a] preponderance of the evidence is 'the greater weight of the evidence * * * [it] means evidence that is more probable, more persuasive, or of greater probative value.'"
{¶6} Plaintiff's allegations of unnecessary or excessive force state claims for battery and/or negligence. As stated in Brown v. Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 10th District No. 13AP-804, 2014-Ohio-1810, ¶¶ 13-14:
To prove a claim for battery, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant "act[ed] intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact, and * * * a harmful contact result[ed]." A defendant may defeat a battery claim
by establishing a privilege or justification defense. However, "the use of excessive force by one privileged to use force on another may constitute battery."
To prove actionable negligence, a plaintiff must show the existence of a duty, breach of that duty, and injury proximately caused by the breach. The state owes a duty to inmates to reasonably care for the inmates' health, care, and well-being.
As also stated in
Brown, "
Ohio Adm. Code 5120-9-01 provides guidance for determining whether a correctional officer's use of force is privileged and/or reasonable."
Id. at 15.
{¶7} Ohio Adm. Code 5120-9-01(B)(1) defines force as "the exertion or application of a physical compulsion or constraint." Correctional officers "considering the use of force shall evaluate the need to use force based on the circumstances as known and perceived at the time it is considered." Force may be used "only to the extent deemed necessary to control the situation." Ohio Adm. Code 5120-9-01(C)(1). Among other situations, corrections officers may use force in "[s]elf-defense from physical attack or threat of physical harm." Ohio Adm. Code 5120-9-01(C)(2)(a). Force may also be used "[w]hen necessary to control or subdue an inmate who refuses to obey prison rules, regulations or orders." Ohio Adm. Code 5120-9-01(C)(2)(c). Excessive force "exceeds that force which reasonably appears to be necessary under all the circumstances surrounding the incident." Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-01(B)(3).
Conclusion
{¶8} It must be remembered that "[t]he use of force is an obvious reality of prison life." Brown, 10th District No. 13AP-804, 2014-Ohio-1810 at ¶ 15. The evidence at trial established that plaintiff first stuck his laundry bag in his cell door to prevent it from closing before pushing the door open during a time when inmates were to return to and then remain locked in their assigned cells. Mr. Webb then briefly sprayed plaintiff with OC spray before plaintiff was taken to the ground with minimal force by Mr. Webb and other corrections officers. The incident ended quickly and plaintiff was handcuffed without any further force being used. Other than temporary discomfort resulting from the effects of OC spray, the incident resulted in no injury to plaintiff who received immediate medical attention.
{¶9} The magistrate finds that Mr. Webb acted reasonably under the circumstances, did not violate the duty of reasonable care owed to inmates and that plaintiff's injuries, if any, were de minimus. The magistrate also finds that defendant established that Mr. Webb acted with both justification and privilege in applying force to plaintiff. Finally, the magistrate finds that plaintiff failed to prove that any of the corrections officers used excessive force. Mr. Webb reasonably perceived plaintiff as a threat to his safety when plaintiff pushed the door open. In addition, in resisting Mr. Webb's attempt to close and lock his cell, plaintiff was refusing to obey prison rules and/or regulations. Mr. Webb used force only to the extent necessary to counter the threat he perceived and to gain plaintiff's compliance after plaintiff refused to be locked in his cell and instead pushed his cell door open. The other corrections officers applied virtually no force to plaintiff and, after he was taken to the ground, the use of force ended.
{¶10} Based on the foregoing, the magistrate finds plaintiff failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence and recommends judgment in defendant's favor.
{¶11} A party may file written objections to the magistrate's decision within 14 days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that 14-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files objections, any other party may also file objections not later than ten days after the first objections are filed. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the filing of the decision, as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).
/s/_________
SCOTT SHEETS
Magistrate Filed March 5, 2021
Sent to S.C. Reporter 4/30/21