Young et al v. Kentucky Department of Corrections et al
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.,
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Civil Case No.
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].
Defendants have filed a
further request for relief on his own behalf, styled a “Reply”
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
Plaintiffs have not availed themselves of any of the non-contact
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 ‘at the end of one year’ from the date of the Agreed
Order being entered” and that, further, there exists evidence
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,
If anything, it is clear that some clarification of the
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
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
monies should it be necessary.
Plaintiffs should be mindful
that it will be necessary to submit a motion properly supported
declarations under penalty of perjury from individuals (such as
their former attorney of record in this matter) with knowledge
Defendants should be mindful that any response would need to be
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
That Plaintiff Leslie Young’s “Motion to Enforce the
Plaintiff Gerald Young’s request for relief [DE 180 and 182] are
costs contained in their Response [DE 181] is DENIED.
This the 15th day of February, 2017.
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?