| Volume Number: 30
Category(s): PRISONS AND PRISONERS |
|
| Opinion Issued May 23, 2014 | |
| DAVID DODD | |
| VS. | |
| DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS | |
| (CC-11-0059) | |
|
Claimant appeared pro se. Cynthia R. M. Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent. |
|
| PER CURIAM:
Claimant, David Dodd (#32931), 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 on April 7, 2009, he was informed by correctional officers that they had seized thirty-nine (39) PlayStation® 2 (“video games") games. Claimant maintains that all of the video games were properly possessed at the time of the seizure because he was “grandfathered in.” As part of the correctional officers’ search of Claimant’s cell, Claimant alleges that his word processor was damaged. Claimant asserts that correctional officers intentionally concealed the damage to his word processor. Claimant seeks the total value of his seized video games and the cost to replace his word processor which totals $2,190.00. 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 advise Respondent precisely how to dispose of 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. Officer Creathers has no knowledge of the broken word processing machine. 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 evidence adduced at the hearing fails to establish that there was a grandfathering provision within Operational Procedure # 4.03. Therefore, the Court must conclude that possession of more than 10 video games was a direct violation of Respondent’s policy. The Claimant did admit that Officer Creathers asked Claimant what he wanted Respondent to do with the excess video games, and Claimant did not give Officer Creathers an answer. Therefore, it is clear that Respondent properly disposed of the excess property after the conclusion of the 31 day holding time as mandated by the operational procedure. Claimant also failed to provide proof that correctional officers did in fact damage his word processing machine. Furthermore, Claimant has not provided the Court with proof of its condition before and after the alleged misconduct. Also, Claimant has failed to establish the cost to replace the machine since by Claimant’s own admission he could only obtain a receipt from a similar machine purchased by his brother more than three years prior. 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 **