Martin v. Conover et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Martin's claims for money damages against the defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. Martin's claims challenging her disciplinary conviction and loss of good time credits, as well as the related procedures, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. This action is STRICKEN from the Court's docket. 4. A corresponding judgment will be entered this date. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 6/19/2017.(AKR)cc: COR, paper copy to plaintiff via US Mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
FRANKFORT
LATARRA MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANET CONOVER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 3:16-cv-98-GFVT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
&
ORDER

*** *** *** ***
Plaintiff Latarra Martin is an inmate at the Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women
(KCIW), a state prison located in Pewee Valley, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney,
Martin filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which she sues the defendants,
all KCIW employees, only in their official capacities. [R. 1 at 2.]
In Martin’s complaint, she describes a physical incident between her and at least one prison
official. [R. 1 at 3.] Martin says that, as a result of this incident, she was placed in administrative
segregation and charged in a disciplinary report with causing a “physical action against an
employee or non-inmate.” [R. 1 at 3.] Martin, however, claims that she “did not cause any
physical action against anyone.” [R. 1 at 3.] Instead, Martin alleges that one of the defendants, a
correctional officer at the prison, assaulted her. [R. 1 at 3.] Nevertheless, Martin states that she
was convicted of the disciplinary offense and, as a result, lost good time credits. [R. 1 at 3, 5, 14.]
Martin now appears to raise a series of claims against the defendants, including an
excessive force claim, though she does not label those claims in a particularly clear way. [R. 1 at
3-13.] Martin also challenges her disciplinary conviction and loss of good time credits, and she
takes exception to the procedures related to that disciplinary conviction. [R. 1 at 3-13, 15-17.]

Ultimately, Martin says that she is seeking $350,000 in punitive damages, and she asks the Court
to restore her good time credits and expunge her disciplinary record. [R. 1 at 14.]
The Court, however, will dismiss Martin’s claims. As an initial matter, Martin’s claims
for money damages against the defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. See Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 594 (6th Cir. 2003). Moreover, Martin cannot
challenge her disciplinary conviction and loss of good time credits in a § 1983 action; instead her
remedy is to pursue relief under state law and then, if necessary, file a habeas action. See Smith v.
Corrections Corp. of America, 5 F. App’x 443, 444-45 (6th Cir. 2001) (discussing Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997)). And to the extent
that Martin takes exception to the procedures related to her disciplinary conviction, she is not
currently eligible for relief on that basis because there is no indication from the record that her
disciplinary conviction has been overturned. See Smith, 5 F. App’x at 445; see also Lee-Bey v.
Gundy, 80 F. App’x 435, 437 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. at 646).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Martin’s claims for money damages against the defendants in their official
capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2.

Martin’s claims challenging her disciplinary conviction and loss of good time
credits, as well as the related procedures, are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

3.

This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.

4.

A corresponding judgment will be entered this date.

2

This the 19th day of June, 2017.

3