861
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted February 3, affirmed March 22, 2023
Vyron Henry GREEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Nathan LOWE,
Collette Peters, and
Timothy Davis,
Defendants-Respondents,
and
JOHN AND JANE DOES et al,
Defendants.
Marion County Circuit Court
21CV19825; A178632
Sean E. Armstrong, Judge.
Vyron Henry Green filed the briefs pro se.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for the respondent.
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, and Joyce, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
JOYCE, J.
Affirmed.
862 Green v. Lowe
JOYCE, J.
Plaintiff was an adult in the custody of defendant,
the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC). After ODOC
seized and then destroyed a set of platinum false teeth found
in plaintiff’s possession, plaintiff sued ODOC for conversion
and negligence. The trial court granted ODOC’s motion for
summary judgment. Because we conclude that the trial
court correctly granted defendant’s motion, we affirm.
By rule, ODOC has listed the only personal property
items that an inmate may possess. OAR 291-117-0080(1).
The list includes two jewelry items: a certain type of wedding ring (for inmates who are married) and a certain type
of watch. OAR 291-117-0080(1)(f).
Here, ODOC officials observed plaintiff with platinum teeth, also known as a “grill,” which is a type of mouth
jewelry that is not on the list of authorized personal property
items. An officer investigated and concluded that the teeth
were contraband. See OAR 291-117-0008(2) (“contraband”
includes “[a]ny article or thing … which [an] inmate is not
specifically authorized to obtain or possess”). The investigating officer confiscated the teeth, prepared a misconduct
report, and the teeth were subsequently destroyed.
As noted, plaintiff then sued ODOC for conversion
and negligence.1 ODOC moved for summary judgment,
arguing that plaintiff’s conversion claim failed because he
had failed to show that he had actual ownership in the teeth
and the right to control them and that his negligence claim
failed because he failed to show that he had a legally protected interest in the teeth. See Western Radio Services Co.
v. Verizon Wireless, LLC, 297 Or App 446, 451,
442 P3d 218,
rev den,
365 Or 534 (2019) (requiring an “actual ownership
interest in and the right to control” property for a conversion
claim); Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No.1J,
303 Or 1,
17,
734 P2d 1326 (1987) (requiring a protected interest for a
negligence claim). The trial court granted ODOC’s motion.
Plaintiff now appeals.
1
He also asserted a claim for violation of the Vulnerable Persons Act, ORS
124.100 - 124.140. The trial court granted ODOC’s motion for summary judgment
on that claim, and plaintiff has not assigned error to that ruling on appeal.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 324 Or App 861 (2023) 863
On appeal, plaintiff’s argument focuses on OAR
291-117-0140(5). That rule provides:
“Inmate personal property items that have been confiscated and held by the department as evidence in a disciplinary investigation shall be returned to the inmate upon
conclusion of the investigation and any subsequent disciplinary hearing/case, if the inmate is found not to have
violated the rules of prohibited inmate conduct, and the
property item(s) is not classified as contraband.”
Id.
As we understand plaintiff’s argument, he asserts
that because ODOC took his teeth as evidence in a disciplinary investigation, ODOC was obligated to return the
teeth upon the conclusion of that investigation and any
subsequent disciplinary hearing unless that hearing determined that he had violated a rule of conduct and that the
teeth were contraband. In plaintiff’s view, because there
was no hearing that resulted in findings that he violated
the rules of prohibited conduct and that the teeth were contraband, the trial court erred in granting ODOC’s summary
judgment motion. Plaintiff does not dispute that the investigating officer determined that the teeth were contraband
and does not contend that that determination was wrong;
rather, he simply argues that ODOC was required to return
the teeth to him in the absence of a hearing confirming the
officer’s determination.
As ODOC observes, although plaintiff does not
connect that argument to how the trial court incorrectly
granted summary judgment on his claims, the import of
his arguments appears to be that if ODOC did not follow
its rules in concluding that the teeth were contraband, then
plaintiff did not lose his ownership interest in the teeth or
his right to control them, as relevant to his conversion claim,
or his legally protected interest in the teeth, as relevant to
his negligence claim.
Accepting that framing, we conclude that the trial
court correctly granted ODOC’s motion for summary judgment. At the outset, we note plaintiff’s argument on appeal
is very narrow. He argues only that, under OAR 291-117-
0140(5), ODOC was required to return the teeth to plaintiff.
864 Green v. Lowe
He does not argue that due process, other ODOC rules, or
any other source of law required ODOC to engage in a different process for declaring the teeth contraband, confiscating them, or destroying them. But OAR 291-117-0140(5)
does not, as plaintiff contends, require a hearing to determine whether he violated the rules of prohibited conduct
and whether the teeth were contraband before ODOC could
retain and subsequently destroy the teeth. Rather, the
rule allows for a hearing—“any subsequent disciplinary
hearing”—but it does not require one.2 The rule simply
requires property to be returned at the conclusion of an
investigation if two conditions are met: (1) the adult in custody is not found to have violated the rules of prohibited
conduct and (2) the property is not classified as contraband.
The officer’s investigation here concluded that the teeth
were contraband, and thus the rule does not require that
they be returned.3
Based on the arguments that plaintiff has presented, no genuine issue of material fact existed whether
plaintiff had an ownership interest or protected interest in
the teeth. The trial court thus correctly granted ODOC’s
motion for summary judgment.
Affirmed.
2
We are aware of no ODOC rule that establishes a process by which ODOC
determines whether an item constitutes contraband and confiscates it. Some of
its rules do suggest that ODOC may conclude that items are contraband and
confiscate them without the concomitant requirement of a hearing or other formal determination that the item is indeed contraband. OAR 291-117-0120(1) (personal property kept in unauthorized areas “shall be considered contraband” and
“shall result in confiscation of the item and/or disciplinary action”); OAR 291-117-
0140(2)(a) (excess property that is not mailed out or discarded “shall be considered contraband, and may result in confiscation of the item(s) and/or disciplinary
action”).
3
The issue presented to us on appeal does not require us to address the propriety of ODOC’s destruction of the contraband after they confiscated it and we
offer no opinion as to that action.
