×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Ohio Prisoners Not Entitled to Memory Typewriters
The Ohio Supreme Court, affirming an appeals court decision, held that Ohio prisoners have no right to typewriters with more than one line of memory and that prison officials were justified in confiscating a prisoner's typewriter that had a five-page memory capacity, even though the typewriter was purchased years before the typewriter policy took effect.
Larry McClintick is a prisoner at Ohio's Madison Correctional Institution (MaCI). He has been there since 1988. In 1993, he purchased an electronic typewriter with a five page memory. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DORC) policy 205-01 defines contraband as "[a]ny item not permitted by law or expressly prohibited by [DORC] and/or institutional policy." On January 4, 2002, DORC Policy 112-12 took effect, stating in part, "Inmates are not permitted to receive or utilize a personal computer, electronic personal information manager, peripheral device or typewriter (with memory storage capacity), outside of an educational, vocational, or work environment."
MaCI officials confiscated McClintick's typewriter in February 2002 because of the new policy. McClintick exhausted his administrative remedies seeking return of his typewriter but was unsuccessful. He then filed a motion for writ of mandamus in the Madison County Court of Appeals seeking to compel Warden Alan Lazaroff and other DORC officials to return his typewriter. The appeals court denied, and McClintick appealed.
To obtain a writ of mandamus, "McClintick had to establish a clear legal right to return of his typewriter, a clear legal duty on the part of [DORC officials] to return it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." The Supreme Court held that McClintick's claim was merit-less, because no administrative rule or DORC policy "confers any legal entitlement on [prisoners] to retain typewriters with specific memory capacity, nor do those provisions obligate prison officials to permit [prisoners] to keep those typewriters." Further, McClintick's argument that Ohio Administrative Code (O.A.C.) 5120-9-33(J) "grandfathered" his typewriter failed, because the rule granted DORC officials' discretion to let prisoners keep personal property that subsequently was prohibited. Finally, the Court noted that DORC officials provided security reasons justifying their decision not only to ban but also to confiscate memory typewriters.
The Court of Appeals denial of the writ of mandamus was affirmed. All state and federal courts to consider the issue have held prisoners are not entitled to use or possess typewriters, word processors or computers. See: State ex rel. McClintick v. Lazaroff, 98 Ohio St.3d 474, 786 N.E.2d 1284, (Ohio, 2003).
Larry McClintick is a prisoner at Ohio's Madison Correctional Institution (MaCI). He has been there since 1988. In 1993, he purchased an electronic typewriter with a five page memory. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DORC) policy 205-01 defines contraband as "[a]ny item not permitted by law or expressly prohibited by [DORC] and/or institutional policy." On January 4, 2002, DORC Policy 112-12 took effect, stating in part, "Inmates are not permitted to receive or utilize a personal computer, electronic personal information manager, peripheral device or typewriter (with memory storage capacity), outside of an educational, vocational, or work environment."
MaCI officials confiscated McClintick's typewriter in February 2002 because of the new policy. McClintick exhausted his administrative remedies seeking return of his typewriter but was unsuccessful. He then filed a motion for writ of mandamus in the Madison County Court of Appeals seeking to compel Warden Alan Lazaroff and other DORC officials to return his typewriter. The appeals court denied, and McClintick appealed.
To obtain a writ of mandamus, "McClintick had to establish a clear legal right to return of his typewriter, a clear legal duty on the part of [DORC officials] to return it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." The Supreme Court held that McClintick's claim was merit-less, because no administrative rule or DORC policy "confers any legal entitlement on [prisoners] to retain typewriters with specific memory capacity, nor do those provisions obligate prison officials to permit [prisoners] to keep those typewriters." Further, McClintick's argument that Ohio Administrative Code (O.A.C.) 5120-9-33(J) "grandfathered" his typewriter failed, because the rule granted DORC officials' discretion to let prisoners keep personal property that subsequently was prohibited. Finally, the Court noted that DORC officials provided security reasons justifying their decision not only to ban but also to confiscate memory typewriters.
The Court of Appeals denial of the writ of mandamus was affirmed. All state and federal courts to consider the issue have held prisoners are not entitled to use or possess typewriters, word processors or computers. See: State ex rel. McClintick v. Lazaroff, 98 Ohio St.3d 474, 786 N.E.2d 1284, (Ohio, 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
State ex rel McClintick v. Lazaroff
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 98 Ohio St.3d 474, 786 N.E.2d 1284 (Ohio 2003) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
State ex rel McClintick v. Lazaroff, 98 Ohio St.3d 474, 2003 -Ohio- 2073 (Ohio 05/07/2003)
[1] THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO
[2] No. 2002-1771
[3] 98 Ohio St.3d 474, 2003-Ohio-2073, 2003.OH
[4] May 7, 2003
[5] THE STATE EX REL. MCCLINTICK, APPELLANT,
v.
LAZAROFF, WARDEN, ET AL., APPELLEES.
[6] SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
[7] Mandamus to compel Madison Correctional Institution warden and other prison officials to return typewriter confiscated from relator as contraband due to its five-page memory capacity - Court of appeals' denial of writ affirmed.
[8] Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. CA2002-05-010.
[9] Larry McClintick, pro se.
[10] Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Christopher D. Betts, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
[11] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
[12] Submitted March 25, 2003
[13] ¶1. Appellant, Larry McClintick, is an inmate who has been confined at Madison Correctional Institution since 1988. In 1993, McClintick purchased a typewriter that has a five-page memory capacity. On November 1, 2001, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") issued Policy 205-01, which designates as contraband "[a]ny item not permitted by law or expressly prohibited by the ODRC and/or institutional policy." In another section of the policy limiting items that may be purchased by inmates from an approved vendor or through the commissary, only typewriters with a one-line memory or less are permissible. Under ODRC Policy No. 112-12, effective January 4, 2002, "[i]nmates are not permitted to receive or utilize a personal computer, electronic personal information manager, peripheral device or typewriter (with memory storage capacity), outside of an educational, vocational, or work environment."
[14] ¶2. In February 2002, prison officials confiscated McClintick's typewriter as contraband because it had more than one line of memory capacity. McClintick's grievance concerning the confiscation of his typewriter was denied.
[15] ¶3. In May 2002, McClintick filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Madison County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Warden Alan J. Lazaroff and other prison and ODRC officials, to return his typewriter to him. Appellees filed an answer and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment.
[16] ¶4. In September 2002, the court of appeals granted appellees' motion and denied the writ.
[17] ¶5. In his appeal as of right, McClintick asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the requested writ of mandamus. In order to be entitled to the writ of mandamus, McClintick had to establish a clear legal right to return of his typewriter, a clear legal duty on the part of appellees to return it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. Moss v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys., 97 Ohio St.3d 198, 2002-Ohio-5806, 777 N.E.2d 259, ¶ 5.
[18] ¶6. McClintick claimed a clear legal right to the return of his typewriter and a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of appellees to return it based on Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-33(J) and ODRC Policy 205-01.
[19] ¶7. McClintick's claim is meritless. Neither Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-33(J) nor ODRC Policy 205-01 confers any legal entitlement on inmates to retain typewriters with specific memory capacity, nor do those provisions obligate prison officials to permit inmates to keep these typewriters. Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-33(J) grants prison officials discretion to allow inmates to keep certain personal property that became prohibited after inmates first obtained the property:
[20] ¶8. "With the exception of any property excluded pursuant to paragraph (I) of this rule, inmates who legitimately possess personal property prior to the effective date of this rule may be permitted to retain (grandfather) said property until such time as said property becomes unusable." (Emphasis added.)
[21] ¶9. Similarly, ODRC Policy 205-01 defines "grandfathered items" to include "[i]tems of personal property an inmate was authorized to possess prior to the implementation of this policy and which they have been permitted to retain after the effective date of this policy." (Emphasis added.)
[22] ¶10. Moreover, because prison inmates have no constitutional right to typewriters, they have no constitutional right to typewriters with a specific memory capacity. See, generally, Taylor v. Coughlin (C.A.2, 1994), 29 F.3d 39, 40; Sands v. Lewis (C.A.9, 1989), 886 F.2d 1166, 1171; Mathis v. Sauser (Alaska 1997), 942 P.2d 1117, 1120, fn. 4; State ex rel. Anstey v. Davis (1998), 203 W.Va. 538, 545, 509 S.E.2d 579. The ODRC policy of excluding typewriters with more than one line of memory capacity was justified by the potentially serious safety and security risk to prisons, employees, inmates, and visitors. According to Warden Lazaroff's unrebutted evidence, a "typewriter's memory could be used to help the inmate track and store information concerning the movements of officers, staff, and others which could then be used to facilitate an escape, riot, or other disturbance."
[23] ¶11. Based on the foregoing, McClintick did not establish that he was entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ. Judgment affirmed.
[24] Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook, Lundberg Stratton and O'Connor, JJ., concur.
[1] THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO
[2] No. 2002-1771
[3] 98 Ohio St.3d 474, 2003-Ohio-2073, 2003.OH
[4] May 7, 2003
[5] THE STATE EX REL. MCCLINTICK, APPELLANT,
v.
LAZAROFF, WARDEN, ET AL., APPELLEES.
[6] SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
[7] Mandamus to compel Madison Correctional Institution warden and other prison officials to return typewriter confiscated from relator as contraband due to its five-page memory capacity - Court of appeals' denial of writ affirmed.
[8] Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Madison County, No. CA2002-05-010.
[9] Larry McClintick, pro se.
[10] Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Christopher D. Betts, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
[11] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
[12] Submitted March 25, 2003
[13] ¶1. Appellant, Larry McClintick, is an inmate who has been confined at Madison Correctional Institution since 1988. In 1993, McClintick purchased a typewriter that has a five-page memory capacity. On November 1, 2001, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") issued Policy 205-01, which designates as contraband "[a]ny item not permitted by law or expressly prohibited by the ODRC and/or institutional policy." In another section of the policy limiting items that may be purchased by inmates from an approved vendor or through the commissary, only typewriters with a one-line memory or less are permissible. Under ODRC Policy No. 112-12, effective January 4, 2002, "[i]nmates are not permitted to receive or utilize a personal computer, electronic personal information manager, peripheral device or typewriter (with memory storage capacity), outside of an educational, vocational, or work environment."
[14] ¶2. In February 2002, prison officials confiscated McClintick's typewriter as contraband because it had more than one line of memory capacity. McClintick's grievance concerning the confiscation of his typewriter was denied.
[15] ¶3. In May 2002, McClintick filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Madison County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Warden Alan J. Lazaroff and other prison and ODRC officials, to return his typewriter to him. Appellees filed an answer and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment.
[16] ¶4. In September 2002, the court of appeals granted appellees' motion and denied the writ.
[17] ¶5. In his appeal as of right, McClintick asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the requested writ of mandamus. In order to be entitled to the writ of mandamus, McClintick had to establish a clear legal right to return of his typewriter, a clear legal duty on the part of appellees to return it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. Moss v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys., 97 Ohio St.3d 198, 2002-Ohio-5806, 777 N.E.2d 259, ¶ 5.
[18] ¶6. McClintick claimed a clear legal right to the return of his typewriter and a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of appellees to return it based on Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-33(J) and ODRC Policy 205-01.
[19] ¶7. McClintick's claim is meritless. Neither Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-33(J) nor ODRC Policy 205-01 confers any legal entitlement on inmates to retain typewriters with specific memory capacity, nor do those provisions obligate prison officials to permit inmates to keep these typewriters. Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-33(J) grants prison officials discretion to allow inmates to keep certain personal property that became prohibited after inmates first obtained the property:
[20] ¶8. "With the exception of any property excluded pursuant to paragraph (I) of this rule, inmates who legitimately possess personal property prior to the effective date of this rule may be permitted to retain (grandfather) said property until such time as said property becomes unusable." (Emphasis added.)
[21] ¶9. Similarly, ODRC Policy 205-01 defines "grandfathered items" to include "[i]tems of personal property an inmate was authorized to possess prior to the implementation of this policy and which they have been permitted to retain after the effective date of this policy." (Emphasis added.)
[22] ¶10. Moreover, because prison inmates have no constitutional right to typewriters, they have no constitutional right to typewriters with a specific memory capacity. See, generally, Taylor v. Coughlin (C.A.2, 1994), 29 F.3d 39, 40; Sands v. Lewis (C.A.9, 1989), 886 F.2d 1166, 1171; Mathis v. Sauser (Alaska 1997), 942 P.2d 1117, 1120, fn. 4; State ex rel. Anstey v. Davis (1998), 203 W.Va. 538, 545, 509 S.E.2d 579. The ODRC policy of excluding typewriters with more than one line of memory capacity was justified by the potentially serious safety and security risk to prisons, employees, inmates, and visitors. According to Warden Lazaroff's unrebutted evidence, a "typewriter's memory could be used to help the inmate track and store information concerning the movements of officers, staff, and others which could then be used to facilitate an escape, riot, or other disturbance."
[23] ¶11. Based on the foregoing, McClintick did not establish that he was entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ. Judgment affirmed.
[24] Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook, Lundberg Stratton and O'Connor, JJ., concur.