Opinion
NO. 2016-CA-000893-MR
06-23-2017
ADAM MORRIS APPELLANT v. DUNCAN J. KENDALL, ADJUSTMENT OFFICER; PAUL D. CROUCH, ADMINISTRATIVE CAPTAIN; KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS APPELLEES
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Adam Morris, Pro Se Eddyville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: NO BRIEF FILED
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT FOURTH DIVISION
HONORABLE PAMELA R. GOODWINE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 16-CI-01015 OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: KRAMER, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND JONES, JUDGES. KRAMER, CHIEF JUDGE: Adam Morris appeals, pro se, from an order of the Fayette Circuit Court dismissing his petition for declaration of rights after he alleged that prison authorities violated his due process rights during a disciplinary hearing. Because Morris failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by KRS 454.415(1), we affirm.
Kentucky Revised Statute. --------
In November 2015, at the Blackburn Correctional Complex, Correction Officer Todd Conner conducted a pat-down search on Morris after discovering him with a belt around his arm and noticing him drop something in his sweatpants as he was using the bathroom. Before the search, Conner asked Morris if he had anything sharp that could poke him while performing the search. Morris replied "no." During the search, a syringe fell from Morris's pants. The syringe had a needle that protruded approximately one inch from the tube, blood in the tube, and blood on the needle.
As a result of this, Conner filed a disciplinary report against Morris. Morris was charged with concealing an item that could puncture employees during a search. Morris pled not guilty, waived his right to a 24-hour prehearing notice, reserved his right to be present at the hearing, and was assigned a legal aide to assist him with his defense.
The adjustment committee conducted a disciplinary hearing shortly thereafter. At the hearing, Morris admitted he was attempting to conceal the syringe, but stated he should not be found guilty because the syringe was on the floor at his feet during the entire search. The adjustment committee ultimately found Morris guilty and he was penalized by the forfeiture of four years of non- restorable "good-time" credit, assigned to administrative segregation for fifteen days, and transferred to Little Sandy Correctional Complex (LSCC). Morris appealed his conviction to the Warden's designee at LSCC, Paul Crouch, who upheld the adjustment committee's decision.
Morris then filed a petition for declaration of rights pursuant to KRS 418.040 in the Fayette County Circuit Court. However, Morris never attached a copy of his appeal to the warden with his petition. The Department of Corrections moved to dismiss asserting this amounted to a failure, on the part of Morris, to exhaust his administrative remedies. The circuit court granted the motion, and this appeal followed.
To challenge an adverse disciplinary ruling, KRS 454.415 requires prisoners to exhaust their administrative remedies and to provide proof of exhaustion prior to seeking redress from the courts. Compliance with KRS 454.415 is mandatory. Failing to attach the requisite documents demonstrating that all administrative remedies have been exhausted will warrant dismissal of a prisoner's petition. See Houston v. Fletcher, 193 S.W.3d 276, 277-78 (Ky. App. 2006).
In Houston, this Court held that a defendant must attach the proper documentation to his petition "verifying the arguments that had been raised in his administrative appeal to the [w]arden . . . ." Id. at 277-78. In Houston, as in the instant appeal, the Department argued that because of the omission of this documentation the defendant failed to establish he exhausted his administrative remedies as required under KRS 454.415(1). Again, similar to this case, this procedural failure caused the circuit court to dismiss the petition for declaration of rights. We affirmed the dismissal on appeal.
KRS 454.415(3) mandates that an inmate attach the necessary documents to his complaint verifying that his administrative remedies have been exhausted. Although Morris did attach documents indicating the Warden heard and denied his appeal, there is no documentation setting forth the grounds of his appeal. It is impossible to determine whether the arguments in Morris's petition for declaration of rights were identical to those raised before the Warden. The circuit court was, therefore, unable to conduct a meaningful review of Morris's claims because it received no evidence as to the basis on which the Warden denied the appeal. In light of these facts and circumstances, the circuit court properly dismissed Morris's petition.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Fayette Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Adam Morris, Pro Se
Eddyville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: NO BRIEF FILED