Youngstown Daily Legal News

10th District rejects inmate's claims of correction officers' assault and battery

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 3, 2012

A Franklin County appellate panel ruled this week that an inmate’s complaints alleging assault and battery by two corrections officers could not survive a motion for summary judgment after he failed to file evidence supporting his claims or dispute the officers’ counter argument.

The 10th District Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment granted to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction after finding that Elliot Miller failed to provide evidence that the corrections officers used excessive force to dissolve a fight between inmates.

“Before this court, appellant contends that the trial court rushed to judgment on his claims and failed to consider evidence in his favor. We disagree,” 10th District Judge Judith French wrote for the court.

According to case summary, Miller was an inmate at the Mansfield Correctional Institute in March 2011 when officers were called to handle a fight among the inmates.

Miller claimed that he followed the officers’ orders and quietly exited his cell and laid face down on the ground. He argued that the officers still used force and he filed a complaint in July 2011. The complaint alleged assault and battery, negligence, and breach of common law duty.

In their responding affidavits, the corrections officers stated that when they arrived at the scene of the fight, Miller was in his cell fighting other inmates. They determined that Miller was intoxicated and attempted to remove him from the cell block.

Miller refused to walk or obey orders and the officers pepper sprayed him, according to their affidavits. They further stated that they used no other force.

As his response, Miller filed an affidavit from another inmate, Mark Griffin, stating that the officers had used excessive force on Griffin.

Finding that Miller had not filed evidence opposing the officers’ affidavits, the Court of Claims of Ohio granted the DRC’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal to the 10th District, Miller argued that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment and that his constitutional rights were violated.

The three-judge appellate panel held that force is “an obvious reality of prison life,” and that excessive force was defined as exceeding what appeared reasonably necessary in a certain situation. It found that the affidavits from the corrections officers claimed they used the force necessary to get Miller to comply with their orders after he was unruly and unwilling to cooperate.

“The affidavits, then, provided evidence that the use of force was justified and lawful pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-01(C)(2)(c) and, therefore, that was sufficient to defeat appellant’s claims of assault and battery, negligence, and breach of duty,” French stated.

The judges determined that Miller had not disputed the affidavits and had failed to file evidence supporting his claims. This left the trial court with only the officers’ affidavits to base its opinion on.

“Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of DRC on appellant’s claims,” French continued.

Miller argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he was not interviewed concerning the officers’ use of force and an investigation was not conducted.

The 10th District judges found that Miller’s complaint did not raise a constitutional issue and that it could not have done so properly because the court of claims would have lacked jurisdiction.

“Therefore, appellant could not have succeeded on these claims,” French wrote.

“For all these reasons, we overrule appellant’s assignments of error. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio.”

Fellow 10th District judges Peggy Bryant and William Klatt joined French to form the majority.

The case is cited Miller v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., case No. 2012-Ohio-3382.

[Back]