Eaves v. Ballard et al
Filing
53
OPINION & ORDER denying 52 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Michael Eaves. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 3/12/19.(JLM)cc: COR,pltf by U.S. mail.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
AT LEXINGTON
MICHAEL EAVES,
CIVIL NO. 5:17-111-KKC
Plaintiff,
V.
OPINION AND ORDER
RODNEY BALLARD, et al.
Defendants.
*** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff Michael Eaves’ motion for a temporary
restraining order and injunctive relief (DE 52). For the following reasons, the motion must be
denied.
Eaves is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Green River Correctional Complex
(“GRCC”). When he filed this action, he was incarcerated at Northpoint Training Facility. Since
then, he has been transferred three times: first to Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex
(EKCC), then to Little Sandy Correctional Complex and, most recently, to GRCC.
In his complaint, he alleges that he is mentally and physically disabled. He asserts that he
has bipolar disorder, is blind in one eye, and has significant hearing loss. He states that, due to
his disabilities, he is “bottom bunk restricted.” He asserts that he was approved for the “Honors
Program” at Northpoint in July 2016, but he was informed that a bottom bunk was not available
in the program and that it may take up to a year for a bottom bunk to become available.
Eaves explains that residing within the Honors Program is safer for inmates than residing
within the general population because the inmates in the Honors Program are less likely “to rob
and fight and extort” than the inmates in the general population. (DE 10, Amended Complaint at
10.) Further, he asserts that inmates in the Honors Program have greater access to the main yard,
the gym, and the canteen than the general population.
Eaves asserts that bottom bunks actually have been available in the Honors Program at
Northpoint since he was accepted into the program. Nevertheless, he has not been permitted to
enter the program.
Based on his exclusion from the Honors Program, Eaves filed this action, asserting
claims against five defendants: Rodney Ballard, who Eaves identified as the Commissioner of
the Kentucky Department of Corrections; Don Bottom, who Eaves identified as the Warden at
Northpoint Training Center; and three other individuals who Eaves identified as employees at
Northpoint Training Center. These individuals are Christian Toelke, Brad Adams, and Stefany
Hughes. (DE 10, Amended Complaint.)
Eaves asserted four claims: violations of the Americans with Disablities Act (ADA), the
Rehabilitation Act (RA), and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
In a prior opinion, the Court dismissed Eaves’ claims under the RA and ADA against all
the defendants, finding that there is no individual liability under Title II of the ADA. (DE 27,
Opinion.) As to the constitutional claims, the Court dismissed these claims against
Commissioner Ballard, Warden Bottom, and Deputy Warden Adams but determined that the
claims should not be dismissed against Toelke and Hughes.
As a result, the sole claims remaining in this action are Eaves’ claims that Toelke and
Hughes violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteen Amendments by failing to process his
transfer to the Honors Program while he was incarcerated at Northpoint Training Center.
With his motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Eaves, who is now housed at
GRCC, asserts that certain officials have retaliated against him for filing the ADA complaint in
2
this Court. (DE 52, Motion at 1.) The specific remedy that Eaves requests is a “Temporary
Restraining Order and Injunction to prevent any further acts against Plaintiff and sanction the
KDOC on a level that will undoubtedly deter any other officials or employees from retaliating
against Plaintiff ….” He further asks the Court to “investigate[] these and all claims made within
this action” and “provide a letter of findings to Plaintiff along with the Defendants and KDOC
promptly. . . .” (DE 52, Motion at 17.)
There are a few problems with this motion. First, the Court is part of the judicial branch
of government. It is not able to conduct investigations to determine if violations of the law have
occurred.
Second, many of the retaliatory actions Eaves alleges in this motion occurred during the
time that Eaves was housed at Northpoint. These alleged actions include transferring him from
Northpoint to EKCC; restricting his inmate account so that his family and friends could not make
deposits; prohibiting him from making phone calls by denying him a new phone PIN number
after someone stole his previous PIN number; and stealing his driver’s license from his mail
when his family mailed it to him at Northpoint. These actions have already occurred. Eaves is no
longer housed at Northpoint. Accordingly, there is nothing for this Court to enjoin the Northpoint
officials from doing. These past actions may support a claim, but they do not support Eaves’
motion for an immediate order that would prohibit officials from engaging in ongoing activity.
Third, in support of this motion, Eaves asserts that other allegedly retaliatory actions
occurred at GRCC and are still occurring, but he has not named any GRCC personnel as
defendants in this action. He alleges that GRCC personnel assigned him to a dorm where gang
members and “problem inmates” are housed. He alleges that GRCC personnel have failed to
punish gang members when they commit crimes against him; and that, in fact, GRCC and the
3
Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC) use the gangs to “carry out brutality” against
prisoners who the KDOC wishes to punish. He alleges that he has not been placed in the Honors
Dorm at GRCC, but that other prisoners have been who did not have Honors status as long as
Eaves did.
With this action, however, Eaves has asserted claims against only officials at Northpoint.
The only remaining claims are claims under the Eight and Fourteenth Amendment against
Northpoint officials Toelke and Hughes.
If Eaves wishes the Court to enjoin individuals in their official capacities or the KDOC
from taking retaliatory actions against him in violation of the ADA, he must file an action
naming the officials in their official capacities that he seeks to enjoin or the KDOC.
For all these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Eaves’ motion for a temporary
restraining order and injunctive relief (DE 52) is DENIED.
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?