Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — State Agency (Department of Corrections) Policies as Reflected on Its Website

Dugas v. Wittrup, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3055 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 2016):

Plaintiff, formerly incarcerated by the State of Ohio at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution ("CCI"), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Brian Wittrup, Chief of the Bureau of Classification for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"), alleging that defendant was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm to plaintiff's safety in violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 51 ("Plaintiff's Motion"), see also ECF No. 61 ("Plaintiff's Formal Summary Judgment Briefing and Motion to Amend"), and defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 100 ("Defendant's Motion"). For the reasons that follow, [*2]  Plaintiff's Formal Summary Judgment Briefing and Motion to Amend is DENIED; it is RECOMMENDED that the Plaintiff's Motion be DENIED and that Defendant's Motion be GRANTED.

I. ODRC classification system and protective control

The ODRC maintains a classification system "that creates a process for the classification of inmates according to their security risk." ODRC Department Policy No. 53-CLS-08, available at ("Policy No. 53-CLS-08"); United States v. Newsome, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150659, at *2-3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2014) ("Public records and government documents, including those available from reliable sources on the Internet, are subject to judicial notice."). The assignment of each inmate to a particular institution is based on "the needs of the offender, the safety of persons in the institution, and the operational stability of the institution." Policy No. 53-CLS-08(V).

Share this article:


Recent Posts