Brown v. Chandler et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 15 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 15 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 1/15/2014. cc:counsel (KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-00099-TBR
Plaintiff

ADRIAN LAMAR BROWN
v.
LARRY CHANDLER

Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Adrian Lamar Brown’s “Motion to
Vacate or Amend it’s December 10, 2013 opinion dismissing his action” pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.

(Docket No. 15.)

This matter is ripe for

adjudication. For the following reasons, the Court will DENY Defendant’s Motion to
vacate or amend the Court’s December 10, 2013 opinion dismissing his action.
Previously the Court screened Plaintiff’s pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A and McGore v. Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other
grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), and dismissed the action. (Docket
No. 12.) Plaintiff now moves the Court to vacate or amend that Order. In Plaintiff’s
motion, he does not directly address the Court’s rationale for dismissing his due
process, equal protection, and Kentucky state law claims. (See Docket No. 12, at 3-6.)
Instead, Plaintiff’s sole new argument, which was not already contained in his
complaint, is that:

Page 1 of 4

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, made it clear that 1983 claims is
appropriate and available for procedural challenges of state
violations made by the state parole board.
* **
The threshold question before the court is weather the defendant
acts violated the law. And if so plaintiff has stated a due process
claim under Wilkinson v. Dotson, for which this court has failed to
apply applicable to plaintiff.
(Docket No. 15, at 4.)
In Dotson, the Supreme Court permitted prisoners to pursue 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claims alleging that Ohio’s state parole procedures violated the Federal Constitution.
Dotson, 544 U.S. 75-77.

Specifically, the prisoners challenged the retroactive

application of new, harsher guidelines that came into effect after they began to serve
their prison terms. Id. at 76-77. Dotson held that a 1983 action will not lie when a state
prisoner challenges “the fact or duration of his confinement.” Id. at 79. This includes
instances where, although the relief sought wouldn’t directly shorten the duration of
confinement or eliminate it altogether, it “would necessarily imply the unlawfulness of a
(not previously invalidated) conviction or sentence.” Id. at 81.
Because Plaintiff’s complaint only requests a “rehearing pursuant to KRS §
439.340(14) toward Class C Felony,” (Docket No. 1, at 8), on its face the holding in
Dotson that a 1983 action will not lie when a state prisoner challenges “the fact or
duration of his confinement” would not appear to bar his action. Dotson, 544 U.S. at
79. Plaintiff’s sole argument for a rehearing is that the parole board ignored Kentucky
Revised Statute § 439.340 which, under certain circumstances, sets the maximum parole

Page 2 of 4

deferment at 24 months.1 As in Dotson, success for Plaintiff “does not mean immediate
release from confinement or a shorter stay in prison,” rather “it means at most a new
parole hearing.” Id. at 82. Essentially, Plaintiff’s claim would not “necessarily spell
speedier release.” Id.
However, Dotson involved the retroactive application of parole guidelines
implicating the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause, rather than the situation alleged
here where a state misapplies its own guidelines/statute. Dotson, 544 U.S. at 77.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s assertion that a due process claim is available under Dotson
ignores the Court’s previous holding, (Docket No. 12, at 3), that there is no
constitutional or inherent right to parole or a parole hearing, Kentucky has not created a
liberty interest in parole, and Kentucky considers the grant of parole a matter of “grace
or gift.”

See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005) (stating due process

claimants must establish that a life, liberty, or property interest is at stake); Coleman v.
Martin, 63 Fed. App’x. 791, 792 (6th Cir. 2003) (finding prisoners have no
constitutional or inherent right to parole or a parole hearing) (quoting Greenholtz v.
Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979)); Smith v. Chandler; 2012
WL 4794451, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 9, 2012) (quoting Coleman); Lynch v. Wingo, 425
S.W.2d 573, 574 (Ky. 1968) (finding grant of parole is a “grace or gift”). Therefore,
Plaintiff fails to state a claim for violation of due process.

1

Plaintiff received a parole deferment of 48 months. The Court does not need to decide whether or not
Kentucky Revised Statute § 439.340(14) applies to Plaintiff because even assuming it did apply,
Plaintiff’s action would still be dismissed for the reasons discussed.

Page 3 of 4

Additionally, Plaintiff has not addressed the bases under which the Court found
he had failed to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, Plaintiff
has not addressed the Court’s holdings that alleged violations of Kentucky statutes or
parole regulations do not, standing alone, show that Defendants violated his
constitutional rights and that to the extent he was seeking relief under state law the
Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over those state-law claims. See
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motion

requesting the Court to vacate or amend its December 10, 2013 opinion dismissing his
action.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, and consistent with the Court’s conclusions above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to vacate or amend the
Court’s December 10, 2013 opinion dismissing his action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:
cc:

January 15, 2014

Adrian Lamar Brown, pro se
Kentucky State Penitentiary
266 Water Street
Eddyville, KY 42308
Counsel

Page 4 of 4