Court Opinion

ID: 9383825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 14:04:51.77961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:48.596706
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 24, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

               Commonwealth of Kentucky
                         Court of Appeals

                            NO. 2022-CA-0437-MR

MARISA CUNNINGHAM                                                  APPELLANT

              APPEAL FROM MUHLENBERG CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE BRIAN WIGGINS, JUDGE
               ACTION NOS. 20-CR-00090 AND 21-CR-00007

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                             APPELLEE

                                  OPINION
                                 AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; COMBS AND JONES, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: Appellant, Marisa Cunningham, pro se, appeals from the denial

of her amended motion to amend final judgment pursuant to Kentucky Rule of

Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02(f) and CR 60.03. After our review, we affirm.

            Cunningham is incarcerated at the Kentucky Correctional Institute for

Women. On September 24, 2021, she filed a motion to amend final judgment

pursuant to CR 60.02(f), CR 60.03, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution. In her motion, Cunningham asked the court to

relieve her of the remainder of her sentence on the ground that due to her

incarceration, she was at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. She also noted

that at present, there was not an adequate mechanism for testing inmates and staff

for the virus. Cunningham submitted that if relief could not be granted under CR

60.02, CR 60.03 would provide a sufficient procedural vehicle. Cunningham

argued that her continued incarceration was a cruel and unusual punishment

prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. She further alleged that

there had been a COVID-19 outbreak at prison; that she was diagnosed with

COPD;1 that she was placed on an inhaler; that she testified positive for COVID-

19; and that on September 10, 2021, she was placed in quarantine.

                By order entered October 12, 2021, the trial court denied the motion,

reciting as follows:

                The Defendant has filed with the Court a motion to
                amend final judgment pursuant to CR 60.02(f) and CR
                60.03. However, she has failed to state a claim justifying
                the relief she seeks. Reliance on CR 60.03 is misplaced,
                as the Defendant’s motion does not constitute an
                independent action. Further, the Defendant has not
                showed [sic] that she has exhausted her administrative
                remedies.

Cunningham did not appeal from this order of October 12, 2021.

1
    Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

                                             -2-
             Approximately five months later, on March 21, 2022, Cunningham

filed another motion, captioned “AMENDED MOTION TO AMEND FINAL

JUDGEMENT, PURSUANT TO CR 60.02, CR 60.03, AND THE EIGHT[H]

AND FOURTEEN AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION.” (Underline and uppercase original.) Again, Cunningham

argued that due to incarceration, she was at increased risk of contracting COVID-

19. She alleged that as of September 3, 2021, the Kentucky Correctional

Institution for Women was on lockdown due to an outbreak of the virus and that

she had contracted COVID-19 with lasting side effects. She again asserted that

there was not at present an adequate mechanism for testing inmates and staff for

the virus. She submitted that if CR 60.02(f) did not provide a sufficient procedural

vehicle for relief, CR 60.03 would do so; and that her continued incarceration

under the circumstances constituted cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by

the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

             By order entered on March 22, 2022, the trial court denied

Cunningham’s motion:

             The Defendant has filed with the Court a motion to
             amend final judgment pursuant to CR 60.02(f) and CR
             60.03. However, she has failed to state a claim justifying
             the relief she seeks. Relief under CR 60.02(f) is not
             warranted, as the Defendant has cited no circumstance at
             her present place of confinement that endangers her
             health or safety. Reliance on CR 60.03 is misplaced, as
             the Defendant’s motion does not constitute an

                                        -3-
            independent action. Finally, the Defendant has not
            showed [sic] that she has exhausted her administrative
            remedies.

(Emphasis original.)

            On April 19, 2022, Cunningham filed notice of appeal from the trial

court’s March 22, 2022, order.

            CR 60.02 provides as follows in relevant part:

            On motion a court may, upon such terms as are just,
            relieve a party or his legal representative from its final
            judgment, order, or proceeding upon the following
            grounds: . . . (f) any other reason of an extraordinary
            nature justifying relief. The motion shall be made within
            a reasonable time . . . .

            We review the action of a trial court on a CR 60.02 motion for an

abuse of discretion. Ramsey v. Commonwealth, 453 S.W.3d 738 (Ky. App. 2014).

We find no abuse of discretion in the case before us. As this Court explained in

Ramsey:

            The crux of [appellant’s] motion was centered on his
            illnesses and the medical treatment he hopes to receive
            upon release. Upon addressing issues of hardship and
            whether they amount to extraordinary relief which would
            warrant relief under CR 60.02, this Court has previously
            held that the rule specifically functions to address
            significant defects in the trial proceedings. Wine v.
            Commonwealth, 699 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Ky.App.1985).
            In particular, this Court held that family hardships, as a
            result of the defendant's incarceration, did not amount to
            a “substantial miscarriage of justice,” which could be
            remedied by a CR 60.02 motion, but were instead issues
            to be considered by a parole board. Id. By extension of

                                        -4-
                the Court’s holding in Wine, we thus hold that physical
                ailments of a defendant are not tantamount to trial defects
                and therefore do not amount to claims of “an
                extraordinary nature justifying (CR 60.02) relief.”
                Sanders [v. Commonwealth, 339 S.W.3d 427, 437 (Ky.
                2011)].

Id. at 739.

                Since the trial court duly considered and correctly denied

Cunningham’s CR 60.02 motion, she cannot have recourse to CR 60.03, which

provides that:

                Rule 60.02 shall not limit the power of any court to
                entertain an independent action to relieve a person from a
                judgment, order or proceeding on appropriate equitable
                grounds. Relief shall not be granted in an independent
                action if the ground of relief sought has been denied in a
                proceeding by motion under Rule 60.02, or would be
                barred because not brought in time under the provisions
                of that rule.

                Nor has Cunningham demonstrated that she exhausted her

administrative remedies as mandated by KRS2 454.415, which provides that no

action may be filed by an inmate regarding conditions of confinement “until

administrative remedies as set forth in the policies and procedures of the

Department of Corrections, county jail, or other local or regional correctional

facility are exhausted.”

2
    Kentucky Revised Statute.

                                            -5-
            Moreover, Cunningham’s March 21, 2022, motion, captioned

“amended motion to amend final judgement,” is clearly a successive impermissible

CR 60.02 motion, which is not permitted. “CR 60.02 does not permit successive

post-judgment motions . . . .” Foley v. Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Ky.

2014).

            Accordingly, the order of the Muhlenberg Circuit Court entered

March 22, 2022, is affirmed.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                    BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Marissa Cunningham, Pro Se              Daniel Cameron
Pewee Valley, Kentucky                  Attorney General of Kentucky

                                        Courtney E. Albini
                                        Assistant Attorney General
                                        Frankfort, Kentucky

                                      -6-