Morrison v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2017 Ohio 2696

Plaintiff James F. Morrison, an ODRC inmate and registered sex offender, was assaulted in a prison restroom on August 5, 2013, struck with a lock wrapped in a sock by inmate James Hunt.
Morrison alleged the attack was retaliation tied to his informal complaints against Corrections Officer (CO) Connie Carpenter and that Carpenter conspired with Hunt or directed him to attack.
Morrison testified Carpenter had harassed him, made derogatory comments, and had a personal familiarity with Hunt; he reported an earlier informal complaint about Carpenter’s conduct.
Ohio State Highway Patrol investigated; Detective Butler expanded the probe to consider complicity by Carpenter but found no corroborating evidence that Carpenter directed or conspired in the attack.
Carpenter denied prior knowledge of threats, denied harassment allegations, and testified she learned of inmate talk about Morrison only after the assault.
The trial focused on liability (negligence) and whether Carpenter is entitled to civil immunity under R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did ODRC breach duty to protect Morrison from inmate attack?	ODRC (via Carpenter) had notice (through Carpenter’s verbal harassment and alleged direction) that an attack was imminent.	No actual or constructive notice of an impending attack; no evidence ODRC or Carpenter directed Hunt.	Held: Morrison failed to prove actual or constructive notice; negligence claim denied.
Did Carpenter conspire with Hunt to injure Morrison?	Carpenter conspired or directed Hunt, based on her alleged comments, relationship with Hunt, and inmate talk.	No evidence of an agreement or that Carpenter knew of a plot; Carpenter denied involvement.	Held: Conspiracy not proven; claim fails.
Was Carpenter’s conduct manifestly outside scope of employment or malicious so as to defeat statutory immunity?	Carpenter acted with malicious purpose/bad faith/wantonness in conspiring to injure Morrison.	Carpenter acted within scope of employment and not with malicious purpose, bad faith, or wanton/reckless conduct.	Held: Carpenter entitled to immunity under R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F); courts of common pleas lack jurisdiction over such claims here.
Procedural posture: Is judgment for defendant appropriate?	Morrison sought judgment for negligence and civil conspiracy damages.	ODRC sought dismissal/judgment on liability and immunity determination for Carpenter.	Held: Magistrate recommends judgment for defendant and a determination Carpenter has statutory immunity.

Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1995) (civil conspiracy requires an underlying unlawful act)
Williams v. Aetna Fin. Co., 83 Ohio St.3d 464 (Ohio 1998) (an underlying unlawful act is required before a civil conspiracy claim can succeed)
Johns v. Univ. of Cincinnati Med. Assocs., 101 Ohio St.3d 234 (Ohio 2004) (Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to determine state-employee immunity under R.C. 9.86)