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).

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