Court Opinion

ID: 9362926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 15:09:08.281973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:26.488460
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JANUARY 6, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                         Court of Appeals

                            NO. 2022-CA-0081-MR

JAMES HARRISON                                                     APPELLANT

                  APPEAL FROM LYON CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE C. A. WOODALL, III, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 19-CI-00157

DENISE MONTALTA; DEEDRA
HART; HARRY VENSION; JANE
DOE; JOHN DOE; KENTUCKY
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
AND WELLPATH CORPORATION
LLC                                                                 APPELLEES

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; CALDWELL AND GOODWINE,
JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: James Harrison (“Appellant”), pro se, appeals

from an order of the Lyon Circuit Court granting the motion of Denise Montalta,

DeEdra Hart, Harry Vension, Kentucky Department of Corrections (“KDOC”),
and Wellpath Corporation LLC (collectively “Appellees”) to dismiss Appellant’s

complaint alleging that Appellees improperly confiscated medications and medical

items or failed to properly supervise the other named Appellees. Appellant argues

that the circuit court erred in dismissing his action for failure to state a claim upon

which relief could be granted per Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (“CR”)

12.02(f), or per Kentucky Revised Statutes (“KRS”) 454.415. After careful

review, we find no error and affirm the order on appeal.

                      FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

               Appellant is an inmate at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex

(“EKCC”).1 On December 30, 2019, he filed a complaint in Lyon Circuit Court

alleging that KDOC employees Vension and/or unknown defendants John Doe or

Jane Doe confiscated his medication and other medical items2 during a search of

his personal property without properly providing an itemized receipt.3 Appellant

sought declaration that the Corrections Policies and Procedures (“CPP”) have the

force of law and that Appellees should be enjoined from further confiscation.

1
 During the pendency of these proceedings, Appellant was also housed at the Green River
Correctional Complex.
2
 Appellant alleged that one or more of Appellees failed to distribute to him a nebulizer device to
assist his breathing.
3
 According to the complaint, Hart was warden of the facility when Appellant’s medication was
improperly confiscated. Vension, and unknown parties John Doe and Jane Doe, were KDOC
employees. Montalta was a registered nurse employed by Wellpath LLC, which is a prison
healthcare provider.

                                               -2-
Appellant also sought $500.00 per day from the filing of the complaint until the

matter was resolved. Though Appellant asserted that Appellees’ actions

constituted negligence and the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the

substance of his complaint was that Appellees improperly failed to comply with

the CPP.

              On May 6, 2021, Hart, Vension, and KDOC filed a responsive

pleading and motion to dismiss the complaint.4 In support of the motion, Hart,

Vension, and KDOC argued that Appellant failed to exhaust his KDOC

administrative remedies before the filing of the complaint as required by KRS

454.415. In the alternative, they asserted that Appellant improperly failed to

provide with the complaint proof that he exhausted his administrative remedies as

required by statute. Hart, Vension, and KDOC also argued that the CPP does not

confer rights on inmates; therefore, Appellant’s complaint should be dismissed.

Finally, Hart, Vension, and KDOC maintained that because Appellant sued Hart

and Vension in both their individual and official capacities, and as the action was

actually against a governmental entity which employed Hart and Vension, the

action as against the individual employees should be dismissed.

4
 Wellpath and Montalta were not parties to the motion to dismiss, and had not filed a responsive
pleading prior to the Lyon Circuit Court’s dismissal of the action.

                                              -3-
                 On August 20, 2021, the Lyon Circuit Court entered an order granting

the motion to dismiss. The court found that Appellant would not be entitled to

relief under any set of facts he could prove, even when the allegations set out in the

complaint were taken as true and the pleadings were liberally construed in a light

most favorable to Appellant. Appellant’s subsequent motion to reconsider was

denied and this appeal followed.5

                                 STANDARD OF REVIEW

                 “When reviewing appeals of CR 12.02(f)[6] dismissals, we take as true

the allegations contained in the complaint.” Hardin v. Jefferson County Board of

Education, 558 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Ky. App. 2018). A ruling on a CR 12.02 motion

resolves a question of law, which we review de novo. Morgan v. Bird, 289 S.W.3d

222, 226 (Ky. App. 2009) (citations omitted).

                              ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS

                 Appellant, pro se, argues that the Lyon Circuit Court erred in granting

Appellees’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted. Appellant asserts that the order granting Appellees’ motion was

premature, as the matter was adjudicated before Wellpath LLC entered an

5
    Counsel for KDOC states that Appellant has filed 14 lawsuits.
6
  CR 12.02(f) provides that a defendant may assert by way of motion the defense of a failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

                                                -4-
appearance and filed a responsive pleading. He also argues that the court erred in

implicitly ruling that the CPP does not confer rights on inmates. Lastly, Appellant

argues that, contrary to Appellees’ assertion in their motion to dismiss, Appellant

may properly prosecute claims against Hart and Vension in their official capacities.

He seeks an opinion reversing the order on appeal and remanding the matter to the

Lyon Circuit Court for further proceedings.

                 The focus of Appellant’s complaint is that Appellees violated the CPP

as it relates to the confiscation of Appellant’s medication and medical supplies, and

that the CPP has “the force of law and cannot be ignored.”7 Prison regulations,

however, are “primarily designed to guide correctional officials in the

administration of a prison . . . [and are] not designed to confer rights on

inmates[.]” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-82, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2299, 132 L.

Ed. 2d 418 (1995).

                 KRS 454.415 states,

                 (1) No action shall be brought by or on behalf of an
                 inmate, with respect to:

                     (a) An inmate disciplinary proceeding;

                     (b) Challenges to a sentence calculation;

                     (c) Challenges to custody credit; or

                     (d) A conditions-of-confinement issue;

7
    Complaint at p. 7.

                                             -5-
             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) Administrative remedies shall be exhausted even if
             the remedy the inmate seeks is unavailable.

             (3) The inmate shall attach to any complaint filed
             documents verifying that administrative remedies have
             been exhausted.

             (4) A court shall dismiss a civil action brought by an
             inmate for any of the reasons set out in subsection (1) of
             this section if the inmate has not exhausted
             administrative remedies, and may include as part of its
             order an assessment of court costs against the inmate as
             the court may deem reasonable and prudent. The
             correctional facility may enforce this assessment against
             the inmate’s canteen account and against any other assets
             of the inmate through any other mechanism provided by
             law.

             The management of Appellant’s possessions is properly characterized

as a condition of confinement issue per KRS 454.415(1)(d). When applied to the

facts before us, the statute required Appellant to exhaust his administrative

remedies (KRS 454.415(1)) before proceeding in circuit court, and to attach to the

complaint any documents verifying the exhaustion of his administrative remedies

(KRS 454.415(3)). Appellant did attach documents to his complaint demonstrating

that a prior grievance received administrative consideration. The attached

documents, however, addressed only a prior grievance wherein Appellant

complained about the risk of contracting HIV in the communal shower after other

                                         -6-
inmates shaved their facial hair resulting in bleeding. The documents did not

verify the exhaustion of his administrative remedies as to his instant grievance.

Per the mandatory “shall” language of KRS 454.415(4), the Lyon Circuit Court

was statutorily required to dismiss Appellant’s action for failure to properly verify

the exhaustion of his administrative remedies.

               Finally, we find no basis for concluding that the circuit court erred in

dismissing the complaint prior to Wellpath and Montalta filing responsive

pleadings. In a pleading filed on May 6, 2021, counsel for Hart, Vension, and

KDOC informed the court that Appellant had not served Wellpath and Montalta.

                                       CONCLUSION

               Appellant’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, and failure

to file his complaint with supportive documentation per KRS 454.415(3), forms a

sufficient basis for affirming the Lyon Circuit Court’s order dismissing Appellant’s

complaint.8 We hold as moot any question as to whether Appellant may properly

maintain an action against Hart and Vension in their official capacities. Per KRS

454.415(4), the circuit court properly dismissed his action. Accordingly, we affirm

the order of the Lyon Circuit Court dismissing Appellant’s complaint.

8
  Appellant’s pro se complaint contains passing references to negligence and the intentional
infliction of emotional distress arising from the confiscation of his medicine and medical
equipment. It is apparent from Appellant’s pleadings, however, that he is not prosecuting these
claims as independent torts. Rather, his references to negligence and the intentional infliction of
emotional distress derive from his underlying claim that Appellees failed to abide by the CPP.

                                                -7-
         ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:     BRIEF FOR APPELLEES DEEDRA
                          HART, HARRY VENSION, AND
James Harrison, pro se    THE KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT
West Liberty, Kentucky    OF CORRECTIONS:

                          John Hamlet
                          Frankfort, Kentucky

                         -8-