M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-10-2015

Case Style: Marcus Deshawn Woodson v. Cimarron Correctional Facility

Case Number: CJ-2015-282

Judge: Stephen R. Kistler

Court: District Court, Payne County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Pro Se

Defendant's Attorney: Darrell L. Moore

Description: Stillwater, OK - Marcus Deshawn Woodson sued the Cimarron Correctional Facility on a replevin theory claiming:

I
In January 26th, 2007, petitioner was incarcerated and sent to the Lexington Assessment and Reception Facility located in Lexington, Oklahoma: he was later transferred to the Davis Correctional Facility in Holdenville, Oklahoma, at 6888 E. 133 Rd. (Holdenville, Oklahoma, 74848). While at the Davis Facility, Petitioner made certain purchases from the prison commissary. {See, Attached Affidavit and Exhibits}
On May 30th, 2013, Petitioner Woodson was transferred to the Cimarron Correctional Facility, which is located at 3200 S, Kings’ Hwy., in Cushing, Oklahoma 74023.
On February 2015, Petitioner was place in segregation (RHU) pending investigation and his property was allegedly retrieved from his assigned area.
III
According to 57 0.S. § 151 et. seq. and 57 O.S. § 549 (6) and 530.2 of the Oklahoma Statutes Annotated, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections is required by law to promulgate and insure that certain standards of proficiency are maintained in the Prisons and Reformatories.
Within the ‘Department’ there are Operational Policies promulgated specifically for such matters as herein related: i.e., OP-0303120 subsection VII (a thru e) contain the relevant policies for Petitioner’s purposes.
OP-0303120 subsection VII (a) provides:
“***• Reimbursement for lost or damaged secured property will only be made in accordance with Oklahoma Law (51 O.S. § 151 et. seq.”
and:
“Reimbursement will be made by use of Express Checks.” {Subsection D}
Presently, Petitioner Woodson has not been able to receive reimbursement for his lost property, notwithstanding the admissions reluctantly tendered by Security personnel and not by or ‘as contained’ constructively by the property officer’s submissions contained the property form-receipts. Nor as has been provided for by authorized procedure of legislative construction for such matters. (See, Attachment Documentation, herewith.)
Lastly, Petitioner-Woodson submits that the properties herein referenced was not taken in execution on any order or judgment against plaintiff, or to defray fines accessed in levy against him, or by virtue of an order of delivery issued under this chapter. . . but (diametrically) due to only to the negligence of private prison personnel.
According to information and belief, while Petitioner was hand-cuffed escorted to RHU his property was left by Captain Christiant unsecured. (See, attached Affidavit of Petitioner.)
While in restricted confinement and upon learning of his pending transfer again, Petitioner made several attempts to verify that all of his property was taken to the inmate property room since he was not provided with an Property Inventory receipt fiom the Property Officer [Officer Nikki Gillespie].
II
Itemization of Lost Properties
[With Proofs of Purchasesj
Item: Quantity Purchase Date Cost
1. Dickie Jeans Four (4) August 2010 Approx. $180.00
2. Hand held Video Game One (1) 2011/2012 $64-00
3. West Bend Night Light One (1) 201 1/2012 $17.00
4. Surge Protector One (1) 201 1/2012 $32.00
5. Hot Pot One (1) 2011/2012 $34-00
6. Koss Headphones One (1) 2011/2012 $60.00
7. Ear Buds MP3 Two (2) 2011/2012 $37.00
8. Y- Adapter Two (2) 2011/2012 $11.00
9. MP3 (8gb) Player One(l) 2011/2012 $141-50
10. MP3 Outlet Adapter One (1) 2011/2012 $17.00
11. RCA TV. (Color) One (1) 2011/2012 $303.00
12. Universal Remote One (1) 2011/2012 $17.00
13. Play Station 3 One (1) 2011/2012 $273-00
14. Play Station Controllers Two (2) 2011/2012 $ 56.00
15. TV. accessories/cables (Mixed) 2011/2012 $22.00
16. Headphone Extensions Two (2) 2011/2012 $11.00
17. Foster Grants Glasses One (1) Pair 2011/2012 $185.00
18. Photo Albums Two (2) 2011/2012 $14-00
19. Sweat Sets/Tops and Bottoms Two (2) pair 2011/2012 $Approx. $200.00
20. Songs bought for MP3 760 2011/2012, et. al. $ 1,500.00
21. Blue Shirts Three (3) 2011/2012 $90-00
22. Reebok White Tennis Shoes One (1) 2011/2012 $65-00
23. Co-Axial Cables Two (2) 2011/2012 $11.00
Estin,ated Total Value of Purchases
$ 3,500.00 (Roughly
5. While in RHU I made several and repeated attempts to have my properly delivered to me but I was told on February 22’’ of this year that my property could not be located;
6. On February 23 2015, I did submit a Lost Damaged/ Stolen Property Claim (14-
6) to Chief of Unit Management, John Hillagoss and on April 30”, 2015, I received validation both of purchase and lost properly the Chief of Unit Management; and,
7. I was transferred to this facility (JCCC) on 07-01-15 and have yet to receive my property or reimbursement.
Further the affiant saith not.

DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
COME NOW Respondents Byrd and CCF by and through their attorney of record, Darrell L. Moore, OBA #6332, and submit this Motion to Dismiss under the authority of 12 O.S. §2003.1(B). Petitioner failed to first comply with the provisions outlined in 12 O.S. §2003.1(B), and as a result this matter should be dismissed by this Court. Additionally Respondent CCF lacks the capacity to be sued. A brief in support of this motion is filed contemporaneously herewith.

Outcome: ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Now on this the 10th day of September, 2015, the Court finds as follows:
1. That the Respondents’ counsel certified that a copy of the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss was mailed to the Petitioner on August 12,
2015.
2. That Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and brief in support were filed herein on August 14,
2015.
3. That the Petitioner has failed to file a response to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss though the Petitioner has had in excess of 15 days to file a response.
4. That Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be decided by the Court without a hearing pursuant to District Court Rule 4(h).
5. Petitioner’s Petition is defective for failing to comply with the requirements of 12 0.5. §
2003.1 (B) (6), (9) and (11).
6. That Cimarron Correctional Facility is not a legal entity and does not have the legal capacity to be sued.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is sustained and the petition filed herein is dismissed as to the Respondent Cimarron Correctional Facility without prejudice to the Petitioner filing an amended petition herein naming as defendant the correct party; that this action is stayed as to the Respondent Robert Byrd until Petitioner files herein an amended petition complying with the requirements of 12 0.5. §2003.1 (B) particularly the requirements of 12 0.5. § 2003.1 (B) (6), (9) and (11); and that the Payne County Court Clerk shall mail the Petitioner a copy of this order, a copy of the original petition filed herein and a copy of Tile 120.5. § 2003.1.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2018 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.