Walker v. Thompson et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, denying Plaintiff's RENEWED 24 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by William B. Walker.. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 8/16/11.(SMT)cc: COR, Wm. Walker via USMail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

NORTHERN DIVISION

ASHLAND

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-CV-54-HRW

PLAINTIFF

WILLIAMB. WALKER

VS:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LADONNA H. THOMPSON, et al.

DEFENDANTS

***** ***** *****

Plaintiff William B. Walker, an inmate at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional
Complex ("EKCC"), a state prison in West Liberty, Kentucky, pro se, filed this
action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting various claims of civil rights
violations against defendants LaDonna H. Thompson, Commissioner ofthe Kentucky
Department of Corrections; Joseph Meko, Warden at Little Sandy Correctional
Complex; I and Colleen Fanning, a Correctional Officer at LSCC. For the reasons
detailed in the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on July 14,2010 [R. 17], the
Court dismissed Walker's claims against Colleen Fanning; dismissed all of Walker's
claims against the other two defendants, except for his claims that (1) defendants'

1 At the time Walker filed his complaint, he was in inmate at the Little Sandy Correctional
Complex ("LSCC") in Little Sandy, Kentucky. He has since been transferred to EKCC.

policy of racial segregation in two-man cells violated his Fourteenth Amendment
right to equal protection, and (2) the KDOC had violated federal law by deducting his
social security disability income from his inmate account for payment of fines
imposed by the Kentucky courts. Summons was issued to defendants Thompson and
Meko to respond to the foregoing two claims, and they have filed an Answer thereto.
This matter is currently before the Court on Walker's "Renewed Motion For
Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction" [R. 24], to which
defendants have responded. For the reasons stated below, this motion will be denied.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS

Walker's renewed motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and
preliminary injunction, concerns the deduction of monies from his prison inmate
account to satisfy fines Walker has been ordered to pay by various state courts in
Kentucky. 2 Walker asks this Court: (1) to enjoin the Kentucky Department of
Corrections ("KDOC") from taking funds from his inmate account to satisfy these
fines, and (2) to order the KDOC to reimburse him for the funds that have been
deducted from his inmate account pursuant to a state court Order he asserts is null and
void. Walker characterizes these fines as unlawful punishment imposed by Kentucky

2 Specifically, Walker references a $1,000.00 fine imposed by the Boyle Circuit Court on
October 4,2010, and two other state court orders imposing fines that total $2,760.00.

2

state courts under KRS 197.045(5)(a) for the exercise of his constitutional rights.
Walker reiterates the same Constitutional argument made in his Complaint, i. e.,
that taking the funds based on unsuccessful litigation violates his First Amendment
right for redress; additionally, he claims that the statute, KRS 197.045(5)(a), is over
broad. Further, he contends that deducting a prisoner's funds and thereby violating
his Constitutional rights "constitutes irreparable harm," and that repayment of funds
"would serve the public interest because it is always in the public's best interest to
uphold the Constitution."
The pro se Plaintiff apparently misunderstands the role of this Court. To the
extent that he wishes to challenge the Boyle Circuit Court's Order ofOctober 4,2010,
which imposed a $1,000.00 fine and directed the Clerk ofthe Court to accept no more
filings from Walker until the fine had been paid, he is advised that his request for
injunctive relief is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. This doctrine, described
as "a combination of the abstention and res judicata doctrines, stands for the
proposition that a federal district court may not hear an appeal of a case already
litigated in state court. A party raising a federal question must appeal a state court
decision through the state system and then directly to the Supreme Court of the
United States." United States v. Owens, 54 F.3d 271,274 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing
District o/Columbia Court 0/Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,476 (1983); Rooker
3

v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)). However displeased Walker is with the
imposition of the $1,000.00 fine or any other fine imposed by a state court, his
remedy is not to seek relief from a federal district court. Instead, he must pursue
appeals of that decision through Kentucky's appellate courts - to the level of the
Commonwealth's Supreme Court - and then on to the Supreme Court of the United
States.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Walker's "Renewed Motion
For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction" [R. 24] is DENIED.
This 16th day of August, 2011.

SIgned BY'
~ R. Wilhoit. Jr.
United States DIstnct Jwtgt

4