Dieterlen v. Kentucky Department of Corrections et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER; 1)Pla Matthew Dieterlen's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.P.12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; 2)All claims having been resolved, this matter is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the docket; 3)Judgment to be entered in favor of Defs. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 8/5/2013.(LST)cc: COR, Pro Se Pla via U.S. Mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
AT COVINGTON
MATTHEW DIETERLEN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
****

****

Civil Action No. 2:13-26-DLB

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

****

****

Matthew Dieterlen is an inmate confined at the Kenton County Detention Center in
Covington, Kentucky. Proceeding pro se, Dieterlen has filed a civil rights complaint, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Kentucky Department of Corrections; LaDonna H. Thompson,
Commissioner; Christie Feldman, Supervisor Probation and Parole; Beth Frazier, Probation Officer;
and Adena Lehrman, Probation Officer, claiming that they have failed to comply with Kentucky
state law and Corrections Policies and Procedures. [R. 1]
The Court must conduct a preliminary review of Dieterlen’s complaint because he has been
granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis and because he asserts claims against government
officials. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. A district court must dismiss any claim that is frivolous
or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 607-08 (6th
Cir. 1997). The Court evaluates Dieterlen’s complaint under a more lenient standard because he is
not represented by an attorney. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Burton v. Jones, 321
1

F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2003).
Having reviewed the complaint, the Court will dismiss it because Dieterlen has not stated
grounds entitling him to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Dieterlen states that on October 31, 2010, he was convicted in Kenton Circuit Court in Case
No. 09-CR-805 for being a felon in possession of a firearm and that on November 30, 2010, he was
sentenced to five years probation. He states that from that date to August 1, 2011, he fully complied
with all requirements of the terms of his probation and paid all court-ordered restitution. He also
states that on August 1, 2011, he was placed on non-reporting probation. According to Dieterlen,
as of June 1, 2012, he had met all of the requirements of Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) §
439.522 and Corrections and Policy Procedure (“CPP”) § 27-24-01 necessary for early termination
of his sentence of probation. Nevertheless, he alleges that his probation was not terminated at that
time. Dieterlen thus appears to claim that Defendant probation officers violated K.R.S. § 439.522
by not petitioning the court for early termination of his probation sentence.
Dieterlen states that on October 5 2012, he was subsequently charged with another criminal
offense or offenses in Kenton Circuit Court in Criminal Case No. 12-CR-904. He implies that this
new case constituted a violation of his probation in Case No. 09-CR-805. He further implies that
this alleged probation violation should never have occurred because Defendant probation officers’
should have terminated his probation prior to October 5, 2012.
In this petition, Dieterlen seeks release from incarceration for having violated the terms of
his probation, compensatory damages, and dismissal of all charges relating to Criminal Case No. 12CR-904, pending in Kenton Circuit Court.

2

ANALYSIS
Dieterlen appears to claim that as of June 1, 2012, he satisfied all of the statutory
requirements of K.R.S. § 439.522 and CPP § 27-24-01 necessary for early termination of his
sentence of probation, and that Defendant probation officers violated Kentucky state law by failing
to petition the court for early termination of his probation sentence.
These alleged state law violations, however, do not form the basis for a Section 1983 claim.
Violations of state law are not cognizable under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983, which provides redress for
denial of federally protected civil rights. Stanley v. Vining, 602 F.3d 767, 769 (6th Cir. 2010)
(observing that a violation of state law does not make out a claim cognizable under § 1983).
Therefore, because the Complaint does not allege violation of a federally protected civil right, it fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1)

Plaintiff Matthew Dieterlen’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
(2)

All claims having been resolved, this matter is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from

the docket.
(3)

Judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendants.

3

This 5th day of August, 2013.

G:\DATA\ORDERS\Cov13\13-26 Order dismissing complaint.wpd

4