| Volume Number: 30
Category(s): PRISONS AND PRISONERS |
|
| Opinion Issued May 23, 2014 | |
| KENNETH HEARD | |
| VS. | |
| DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS | |
| (CC-10-0491) | |
|
Claimant appeared pro se. Cynthia R. M. Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent. |
|
| PER CURIAM:
Claimant, Kenneth Heard (#17256), an inmate at Mount Olive Correctional Complex, brought this claim to recover the value of certain personal property items that he alleges were improperly converted by Respondent. The Court is of the opinion to deny this claim for the reasons more fully stated below. The Claimant testified at the hearing of this matter that he is a twenty year inmate, and that over this time he has acquired numerous cassette tapes, CDs, video games, and other items of personal property that were once allowable. Claimant admits that these items are no longer allowable in certain quantities per Respondent’s revised policy. Claimant stated that while he possessed these materials, he was considered “grandfathered” and not subject to the new policy. One day, upon returning to his cell from a time in segregation, Claimant stated that numerous items of personal property had been removed from his cell. When Claimant approached Respondent conerning the items, he was told that he had thirty-one (31) days in conformance with Operational Procedure 4.03 to arrange for the removal of his personal property items or that the items would be destroyed. Respondent’s witness, Amber Creathers, Supervisor I, testified that Respondent’s Operational Procedure # 4.03 (Resp. Ex. 1) clearly states that inmates have thirty-one (31) days in which to dictate to Respondent precisley how to dispose of the inmate property. Officer Creathers stated that Claimant did not give her instructions with regard to the property; therefore, Claimant’s property was destroyed per the policy. It is the law in West Virginia that the creation of a bailment situation “imposes upon the bailee the obligation to exercise reasonable and ordinary care for the safety of the property so delivered.” Barnette v. Casey, 124 W. Va. 143, This Court has held that a bailment exists when Respondent records the personal property of an inmate and takes it for storage purposes, and then has no satisfactory explanation for not returning it. Page v. Division of Corrections, 23 Ct. Cl. 238 (2000); Heard v. Division of Corrections, 21 Ct. Cl. 151 (1997). In the present claim, the Claimant had a total of 73 CDs and tapes in his possession, which is more than the amount permitted. However, he had been allowed to keep them because they had been “grandfathered” in after a change in the policy, which set the maximum number of tapes and CDs an inmate was allowed to keep. At some point, the Claimant was placed in “the hole” for reasons which were not given to the Court and which are not relevant to the case. During or at the end of this time, Claimant was advised that the warden had decided to reduce the number of CD’s she would be allowed to keep. He was then advised he had 30 days to decide where the excess tapes and CDs should be sent or they would be destroyed. Respondent kept the property for almost 5 months and was never advised where the property should be sent by the Claimant and so the property was destroyed. The Court is persuaded by these facts that Claimant had an obligation to follow institution procedure, which he did not do. Therefore, he bears the responsibility for the consequences for his lack of action. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to, and does hereby, deny the Claimant’s claim in this matter. Claim disallowed. |
|
| Summary: |
Webmaster | © 2024 West Virginia Legislature **