Landers v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr.

223 N.E.3d 525

2023-Ohio-2857

Charles A. LANDERS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

v.OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

No. 22AP-573

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

Rendered on August 15, 2023

APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio, (Ct. Cl. No. 2020-00718JD).

On brief: Rion, Rion & Rion, L.P.A., Inc., and Bradley D. Anderson, Troy, for appellee/cross-appellant. Argued: Bradley D. Anderson.

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Timothy M. Miller, Columbus and Daniel J. Benoit, for appellant/cross-appellee. Argued: Timothy M. Miller.

DECISION

BOGGS, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant, Charles A. Landers, Jr., and defendant-appellant/cross-appellee, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"), cross-appeal the Court of Claims of Ohio’s judgment regarding three former ODRC employees’ entitlement to personal immunity with respect to their use of force against Landers, while he was an inmate at the Franklin Medical Center, an institution operated by ODRC.

{¶ 2} Landers sued ODRC in the court of claims for negligence and negligent training and supervision, alleging that he sustained serious injuries from excessive use of force by former ODRC corrections officers Korday R. Allison, Paris C. Love, and Jovan K. Cason. Landers alleged that the corrections officers were on duty, in uniform, and acting within the scope of their employment at all relevant times.

{¶ 3} ODRC filed a motion, asking the trial court to determine whether Allison, Love, and Cason are entitled to personal immunity under R.C. 9.86 and whether the courts of common pleas have jurisdiction over a civil action against them for the matters alleged in Landers’s complaint. The magistrate assigned to the case held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that Love and Cason acted within the scope of their employment and were immune from personal liability, but that Allison acted manifestly outside the scope of his employment and was therefore not entitled to immunity.

{¶ 4} ODRC filed objections to the magistrate’s decision regarding Love and Cason, which the trial court sustained in part and overruled in part. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s findings of fact, but it held that only Cason was entitled to immunity.

{¶ 5} ODRC filed a timely appeal, and Landers filed a timely cross-appeal. Neither party challenges the trial court’s determination that Allison acted manifestly outside the scope of his employment and is therefore not entitled to immunity. As to the other corrections officers, ODRC argues that the trial court erred in determining that Love is not entitled to immunity, while Landers argues that the trial court erred by determining that Cason is entitled to immunity. For the following reasons, we conclude that none of the three former corrections officers is entitled to personal immunity, and therefore we affirm in part and reverse in part.

1. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶ 6} The parties do not dispute the magistrate’s factual findings, as adopted without objection by the trial court. (Appellant’s Brief at 10; Cross-Appellant’s Brief at 2, 7; Aug. 16, 2022 Jgmt. Entry at 2.)

A. The December 29, 2018 incident

{¶ 7} On December 29, 2018, while Landers was an inmate in the custody of ODRC at the Franklin Medical Center, corrections officer Allison confiscated a contraband cigarette from Landers and gave it to another inmate. (May 4, 2022 Mag.’s Decision at 1.) Even though cigarettes are not permitted in the facility, Landers had on prior occasions given Allison a honey bun and a soda in exchange for permission to smoke, but he had not done so on the day in question. Id. The melee from which Landers’s excessive force claim arose occurred about five minutes later and is, for the most part, captured on surveillance video. Landers testified that, during the intervening five minutes, he told Allison it was "messed up" that Allison had confiscated Landers’s cigarette while allowing other inmates to smoke.

{¶ 8} On the surveillance video, Landers is seen entering the dayroom and walking behind the corrections officers’ station. He is holding and looking down at a radio, which he described as like an iPod, and wearing headphones. He does not interact with other inmates or corrections officers in the room. Moments later, Allison enters the dayroom from the same direction as Landers, watches Landers cross behind the officers’ station, and then walks around the opposite side of the officers’ station and directly approaches Landers. Allison testified that he approached Landers to understand why Landers was so upset after Allison confiscated his cigarette, but Landers claimed that Allison approached and called him a "pussy bitch." (Mar. 7, 2022 Tr. at 61.) Allison and Landers engage in a brief conversation. Landers appears to be upset, and he points his finger at Allison. Meanwhile, Love and Cason exit the officers’ station and approach Allison and Landers. Allison turns his back on Landers and acknowledges Love and Cason’s presence before turning back toward Landers, who appears to be backed against the wall, with Allison inches from his face, and Love and Cason nearby.

{¶ 9} As Landers takes a step back from Allison, the group moves behind the officers’ station and is largely obscured from the surveillance camera’s view. From the evidence presented at the immunity hearing, however, the magistrate found that Allison initiated the physical confrontation by striking Landers without provocation and that Love and Cason immediately joined the fracas. The magistrate described the physical skirmish as follows:

Through the windows of the officer’s station, [Landers] is seen falling toward the telephones on the back wall. [Landers] appears to attempt to stabilize himself only to fall again with a corrections officer on top of him. The corrections officers appear to struggle with [Landers] while he was on the ground.

[Landers] subsequently attempts to escape toward the exercise equipment [on the other side of the room] as the group emerges from behind the officer’s station and back into view of the camera. Allison follows, eventually tackling [Landers] to the ground. Cason and Love quickly follow behind. Cason appears to strike [Landers] in the head/neck. Allison * * * picks up a blue chair and hits [Landers] with the chair while [Landers] is on the ground. As [Landers] attempts to get back up off the ground, Love pushes [Landers] in the back down to the ground. Allison then swings his fist at [Landers’s] head. Allison and Love jointly push [Landers] back to the ground as [Landers] again attempts to get up. Allison and Cason both appear to strike [Landers] while [Landers] is on the ground. Cason then grabs [Landers] from behind and Allison again strikes [Landers]. Cason picks [Landers] up off the ground, and along with Love, throws [Landers] to the ground. Allison then appears to kick [Landers] in the face. As [Landers] is again attempting to stand up, Allison pushes [Landers’s] face down on the edge of the pool table. [Landers] then stands up, and Allison walks away. [Landers] then leaves the dayroom.

(Mag.’s Decision 2-3.) Landers was subsequently handcuffed while sitting on an outdoor bench and was escorted to the captain’s office. He completed an "inmate confidential statement" in which he related his version of events. Landers testified that, during the altercation, he did not throw a punch, strike back, or kick the officers.

{¶ 10} Allison, Love, and Cason each completed an incident report and participated in an administrative investigation regarding the use of force. They claimed that Landers lunged, flinched, or jumped toward Allison before any force was used against him. (Mar. 7, 2022 Def.’s Exs. B, C, D.)

{¶ 11} Allison, the only corrections officer who testified at the immunity hearing, stated that he approached Landers in the dayroom to deescalate the situation that began when he confiscated Landers’s cigarette. Allison claimed that the situation escalated quickly and that he raised his voice and swore at Landers before Love and Cason approached. Allison admitted that Landers’s alleged verbal threats and use of expletives was not enough to warrant either an order to cuff up or the activation of a man down alarm, but he nevertheless claimed that he ordered Landers to cuff up. Allison stated he thought from the way Landers was talking and moving that Landers was going to assault him and that he feared for his safety. Allison stated that Landers made a "sudden movement" that caused him to react with force, but he could not recall what that movement was, and no threatening movement is visible in the surveillance video. (Tr. at 22.)

{¶ 12} ODRC fired Allison, Love, and Cason, all of whom later pled guilty to dereliction of duty related to the use of force against Landers.

{¶ 13} Allison, Love, and Cason had all received training from ODRC regarding the use of force and de-escalation techniques prior to December 29, 2018. Greg Harris, an investigator employed by ODRC testified that ODRC’s use of force policy requires corrections officers to use the least amount of force necessary to control a situation, beginning with an order for an inmate to cuff up. If the inmate refuses that order, the corrections officer may use mace. If that does not garner compliance, then the officer may use the least amount of physical force necessary to gain control of the situation. Appropriate use of force, he testified, does not include striking an inmate on the face, stomping on an inmate, or throwing a chair at an inmate—all of which occurred here. He testified that corrections officers are trained to deescalate a situation by removing themselves from the situation if necessary, speaking in a lower-toned voice, and calling for assistance. According to Harris, the corrections officers should have activated their man-down alarms to call for help when they had...