| Volume Number: 30
Category(s): PRISONS AND PRISONERS |
|
| Opinion Issued January 12, 2015 | |
| KEITH W.R. LOWE | |
| VS. | |
| DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS | |
| (CC-12-0380) | |
|
Claimant appeared pro se. Cynthia R.M. Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent. |
|
| PER CURIAM:
Claimant, Keith Lowe, an inmate at Mount Olive Correctional Center, brought this claim to recover the value of numerous items of personal property that he alleges were wrongly converted by Respondent upon being stripped from his cell and taken to segregation. The Claimant testified at the hearing of this matter that on January 10, 2012, Claimant was “stripped” from his cell due to a rule violation and taken to punitive segregation. While being removed from his cell, Claimant told officers to protect his personal property because he did not have a good relationship with his cell-mate and his property would be stolen if officers did not monitor his belongings. Claimant testified that he was told by officers “not to worry about it” and Claimant felt reassured that his property would be safe. After serving sixty (60) days in segregation, Claimant learned that his personal property had indeed been stolen and was allegedly being sold by his former cell-mate. Claimant grieved this matter but was ultimately denied on April 20, 2012. Claimant argues now that there are policies and procedures in place that are designed to protect inmate property in such an event. Claimant asserts that Respondent was negligent for failing to safeguard his property. Claimant values his missing property at $1,500.00. Respondent argues that it has no duty to safeguard inmate property during an inmate extraction based on the inmate’s own rule violation and that Respondent was in no way negligent in this instance as the facility had no actual notice that Claimant’s property was being stolen. The Court finds that Respondent had a duty in this instance to safeguard Claimant’s property. The Court is of the opinion that Claimant communicated his wishes to the officers during Claimant’s extraction from his cell, and that officers did assure Claimant that they would safeguard his property. The Court finds that Respondent has a duty to follow operation procedures which safeguard inmate property and that Respondent should be aware of the increased risk that an inmates property will be stolen when the inmate is not there to watch over his own belongings. Therefore, the Court does make a recommendation to the Legislature that this claim be paid. However, the Court finds that the amount of $950.00 is fair and reasonable–not $1,500.00 as originally claimed by the Claimant. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to, and does hereby, grant an award in Claimant’s claim. Award $950.00. |
|
| Summary: |
Webmaster | © 2024 West Virginia Legislature **