Trubiano v. Munson et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Trubiano's complaint #1 is DIMISSED, without prejudice, and this matter is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the docket. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 5/13/2024.(TJG)cc: CORand Chris A. Trubiano by US Mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
(at Covington)
CHRIS A. TRUBIANO,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW MUNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2: 24-078-DCR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

*** *** *** ***
Plaintiff Chris Trubiano is presently confined at the Green River Correctional Complex
in Central City, Kentucky.

Proceeding without an attorney, Trubiano has filed a civil

complaint related to revocation of his parole. [Record No. 1] The Court previously granted
Trubiano’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. [Record No.
10] The Court now conducts a preliminary review of Trubiano’s complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. 1
Trubiano names as Defendants the Kentucky Parole Board, Andrew Munson (an
employee of the Kentucky Parole Board), and Cookie Crews (the Commissioner of the
Kentucky Department of Corrections (“KDOC”)), for allegedly improperly revoking his

On initial screening, 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 Trubiano’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 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2003). At this stage, the Court accepts
the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, and his legal claims are liberally construed in his
favor. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
1

-1-

parole and remanded him to state custody. [Record No. 1] According to Trubiano, Munson
violated Trubiano’s parole on June 12, 2023, based upon photos posted to the plaintiff’s social
media accounts, notwithstanding Trubiano’s claims that he had permission to be on these
social media accounts and that another individual downloaded the photos to his phone. [Id.]
Trubiano also alleges that he was initially housed in the Campbell County Jail, where he was
forced to sleep on the floor for 96 days while awaiting his hearing, and that his legal counsel
at his revocation hearing was ineffective. [Id.] He sues the Kentucky Parole Board and the
individual defendants in their official capacities and requests monetary damages and
reinstatement of his parole. [Id.] However, Trubiano’s complaint will be dismissed on initial
review for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
First, Trubiano may not recover monetary damages from the Parole Board or either
Defendant in their official capacity. An “official capacity” claim against a government official
is not a claim against the officer arising out of their conduct as an employee of the government
but is a claim directly against the governmental agency which employs them. Lambert v.
Hartman, 517 F.3d 433, 439-40 (6th Cir. 2008); Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 810 (6th Cir.
2003) (“While personal-capacity suits seek to impose personal liability upon a government
official for actions he takes under color of state law, individuals sued in their official capacities
stand in the shoes of the entity they represent.”) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Thus, Trubiano’s “official capacity” claims against Munson and Crews are
construed as claims against the KDOC, the agency that employs these Defendants.
However, the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically
prohibits federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit for money
damages brought directly against a state, its agencies, and state officials sued in their official
-2-

capacities. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144
(1993); Brent v. Wayne Co. Dept. of Human Servs., 901 F.3d 656, 681 (6th Cir. 2018).
Moreover, as an agency of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, see Ky. Rev. Stat. § 12.250, the
KDOC (which includes the Parole Board) is not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in
federal court. Such entities are also not suable “persons” within the meaning of § 1983. See
Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324-25 (1981); Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dept. of Health
and Human Servs., 927 F.3d 396, 417 n.11 (6th Cir. 2019). For these reasons, Trubiano may
not recover monetary damages as relief for the claims alleged in his complaint.
Further, this Court cannot grant Trubiano the injunctive relief that he seeks, which is
reinstatement of parole. To obtain his release from custody, Trubiano must file a habeas corpus
proceeding challenging his detention, not a civil rights action. Adams v. Morris, 90 F. App’x
856, 858 (6th Cir. 2004); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). And he may not sue
for damages asserting that he is wrongfully imprisoned until he has obtained the reversal of
the underlying criminal charges. Sanders v. Detroit Police Dep’t, 490 F. App’x 771, 773 (6th
Cir. 2012); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Trubiano’s complaint is
premature until he has satisfied this condition precedent to suit. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Trubiano’s complaint [Record No. 1] is DISMISSED, without
prejudice, and this matter is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the docket.
Dated: May 13, 2024.

-3-