Young et al v. Kentucky Department of Corrections et al

Filing 183

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Pla's 180 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and 182 Young's request for relief are DENIED. (2) Dft's Request for an award of fees and costs 181 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 2/15/2017.(GLD)cc: COR, Leslie Young, pro se. Modified on 2/15/2017 (GLD).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON LESLIE M. YOUNG, et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, v. KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. Civil Case No. 11-CV-00396-JMH MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER *** This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Leslie M. Young’s “Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order of February 10, 2015, and May 19, 2015” [DE 180]. Response [DE 181], and Plaintiff Defendants have filed a Gerald Young has filed a further request for relief on his own behalf, styled a “Reply” [DE 182]. In their respective requests for relief, Plaintiffs argue that more than one year has elapsed since the Court’s Order of February 10, 2015, requiring visitation between Plaintiffs was entered but that Defendants regular contact visitation. Leslie Young’s Motion, have In not their Defendants restored Response take the Plaintiffs’ to Plaintiff position that Plaintiffs have not availed themselves of any of the non-contact visitation provided in for which paragraphs the (1) Court’s and 1 (2) February and, 10, thus, 2015, they order are not entitled to the restoration of regular contact as provided for in paragraph (4). In his request for relief, Plaintiff Gerald Young argues that Plaintiffs “did not have to endure non-contact visitation in subsection order (4) to which gain advantage guaranteed of the restoration agreement of of contact visitation ‘at the end of one year’ from the date of the Agreed Order being entered” and that, further, there exists evidence that Leslie Young attempted to visit him but was denied visitation of any sort on August 27, 2016, on the grounds that her “name d[id] not appear on inmate’s approved visiting list.” That attempted visit is well outside the framework provided for in the Court’s order, and it is unclear whether Leslie Young attempted to visit on March 28, 2015, as suggested in the letter from Keith Helton, Deputy Warden of Security, dated March 19, 2015. If anything, it is clear that some clarification of the Court’s February 10, 2015, Order is necessary. The four paragraphs were intended to set forth a sequential and tiered return to regular contact visitation. Absent some evidence that Plaintiffs have completed the steps set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), the Court is not inclined to require Defendants to comply with paragraph (4) at this time. Neither is the Court inclined to award fees to Defendants with respect to the current motion. 2 The Court with complied is the $40,880.00 in Plaintiff Court’s attorney Leslie Defendants. concerned with May fees Young whether 19, and Defendants 2015, $4,310.11 intimates have Order in not have granting costs, been which paid by Defendants have made no response to this aspect of her motion, leaving the Court to wonder. The Court will, at the present time, deny this aspect of the motion but does so without prejudice to any future motion monies should it be necessary. concerning payment of these Plaintiffs should be mindful that it will be necessary to submit a motion properly supported with evidence of non-payment, i.e., sworn affidavits or declarations under penalty of perjury from individuals (such as their former attorney of record in this matter) with knowledge concerning whether payments were made. For that matter, Defendants should be mindful that any response would need to be similarly supported. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: (1) Court’s That Plaintiff Leslie Young’s “Motion to Enforce the Order of February 10, 2015, and May 19, 2015” and Plaintiff Gerald Young’s request for relief [DE 180 and 182] are DENIED. (2) That Defendants’ request for an award of costs contained in their Response [DE 181] is DENIED. 3 fees and This the 15th day of February, 2017. 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?