Summary
discussing an inmate's process in proceeding with a grievance and action before the Claims Commission in seeking compensation for the loss of two purportedly valuable books
Summary of this case from Harrison v. GibsonOpinion
NO. 2017-CA-000437-MR
03-30-2018
STEPHON TRAMBER APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Stephon Tramber Kentucky State Penitentiary Eddyville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Angela Turner Dunham Department of Corrections Office of Legal Services Frankfort, Kentucky Andrew Graham Beshear Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE PHILLIP J. SHEPHERD, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 16-CI-00521 OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: DIXON, JOHNSON AND TAYLOR, JUDGES. DIXON, JUDGE: Appellant, Stephon Tramber, appeals pro se from an order of the Franklin Circuit Court dismissing his Petition for a Declaration of Rights. Finding no error, we affirm.
Appellant is currently an inmate at the Kentucky State Penitentiary. He contends that when he arrived at the facility in 2014, his property that was inventoried contained several books. Appellant was placed in segregation from February 16, 2015 until March 3, 2105, and upon his release therefrom he went to collect his property and realized that two of his books were missing. The property officer noted on the property sheet that Appellant claimed the said items were missing. Appellant thereafter filed a grievance seeking return of or reimbursement for his missing books. The grievance committee found that Appellant had produced no evidence to support his claim and denied reimbursement. Appellant then appealed the committee's decision to the Department of Corrections (DOC) Commissioner, who issued a decision on May 6, 2015, that Appellant was missing the two books and that the facility would replace or reimburse him for the books. It appears from the record that Appellant received a credit in his prison account in the amount of $13.98, which was the online reimbursement value of the books.
Around the same time as the above proceedings, Appellant filed a claim with the Board of Claims also seeking reimbursement for the missing books. On March 24, 2016, the Board of Claims issued its Findings of Fact, Opinion and Order dismissing Appellant's claim. Therein, the Board concluded,
It is not clear exactly when Appellant filed his claim with the Board, but it appears that it was prior to the DOC Commissioner's review because such is not referenced by the Board.
In this matter, while Claimant had the books in question on a November 21, 2014 property sheet, the books were not listed on a property sheet on February 16, 2015 when he was placed in segregation. It appears these two books were stored in the property room for a while between those dates, but they could have been in his possession when he was "out in the yard" (general population) for approximately three months. While the Claimant owned the books and possessed them in 2014,
he has presented no proof, such as a property sheet, showing that he was still in control or possession of them after that date/year.
The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove that he suffered a loss, and that this loss occurred due to the negligence on the part of the Respondent but, in this case, he has failed to do so.
Thereafter, on May 19, 2016, the Board entered a second order noting that after additional review of the record and supplemental evidence submitted by Appellant, the Board adopted the prior order of dismissal.
On May 19, 2016, Appellant filed a pro se Petition for Declaration of Rights in the Franklin Circuit Court pursuant to KRS 418.040, requesting that the trial court direct the DOC to fully compensate him for the missing books. The Commonwealth thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under CR 12.02(f). On February 10, 2017, the trial court entered an order dismissing Appellant's petition, which stated, in part,
Respondents correctly state that Petitioner essentially advances a claim of negligence. Additionally, Petitioner has already advanced this same claim in front of the Kentucky Board of Claims, as Claim No. BC-15-906. The Board of Claims rendered a decision on this matter on March 25, 2016, denying Petitioner relief as he had failed to meet his burden of proof. Further, as Petitioner's claim was for less than $1,000.00 the Board's decision was final. Therefore, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter further . . .."This appeal ensued.
As he did in the trial court, Appellant claims that the reimbursement value of the two books was actually $286.90, not $13.98, and that prison officials have engaged in a "fractious scheme to swindle [him] out of the full awarded damages . . . the commissioner granted." Appellant further argues that the Commissioner's decision issued on May 6, 2015 rendered the Board of Claims opinion and order moot. We find no merit in Appellant's claims.
The Board of Claims Act is a partial waiver of the Commonwealth's sovereign immunity, in order "to compensate persons for damages sustained to either person or property as a proximate result of negligence on the part of the Commonwealth, any of its cabinets, departments, bureaus or agencies, or any of its officers, agents or employees...." KRS 44.070(1); University of Kentucky v. Guynn, 372 S.W.2d 414 (Ky. 1963). Admittedly, the sequence of procedural events renders the matter herein somewhat confusing. Contrary to Appellant's argument, the Commissioner did not award him a specific amount of money, but instead stated that the books would be replaced, or he would be reimbursed for the value thereof. Nonetheless, throughout the grievance proceedings and his Board of Claims action, Appellant has essentially advanced a negligence claim against the DOC for allegedly losing two of his books while he was in segregation. Thus, the proper avenue for Appellant's negligence claim was, in fact, the Board of Claims, which concluded he had not met his burden of proof. It is clear from the Board's Findings of Fact, Opinion and Order that the merits of Appellant's claim were reviewed pursuant to American Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville and Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Comm'n, 379 S.W.2d 450 (Ky. 1964).
Effective June 29, 2017, KRS Chapter 44 has been renumbered as KRS Chapter 49, Kentucky Claims Commissions. The above-language noted in KRS 44.070(1) is now found in KRS 49.020(1).
At the time Appellant filed his Petition in the trial court, KRS 44.086 authorized an appeal from a determination of the Board of Claims only where the amount in controversy was in excess of $1000. See also Moore v. Kentucky State Penitentiary, 789 S.W.2d 788, 789-90 (Ky. App. 1990). It is uncontested that the amount in controversy in this case is $272.12. Admittedly, Appellant's Petition is not properly characterized as an appeal from the Board's order but rather a request to direct the DOC to fully compensate him for the books. Nevertheless, we agree with the trial court that the same claim was fully reviewed by the Board, and the trial court did not have the authority to adjudicate the matter further.
Effective June 29, 2017, KRS 44.086 has been renumbered to KRS 49.150, and authorizes an appeal where the amount in controversy is over $2,500. --------
For the reasons set forth herein, the trial court's order is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Stephon Tramber
Kentucky State Penitentiary
Eddyville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Angela Turner Dunham
Department of Corrections Office of
Legal Services
Frankfort, Kentucky Andrew Graham Beshear
Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky