From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cunningham v. Fayette Cnty. Det. Ctr.

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
Mar 15, 2013
NO. 2011-CA-002061-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2013)

Opinion

NO. 2011-CA-002061-MR ACTION NO. 11-CI-04571

03-15-2013

ERIC CUNNINGHAM APPELLANT v. FAYETTE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, DWIGHT HALL AND OFFICER ROBERTS APPELLEES

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Eric Cunningham, Pro Se Lexington, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEES: Tracey W. Jones Lexington, Kentucky


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE THOMAS L CLARK, JUDGE


OPINION

AFFIRMING

BEFORE: ACREE, CHIEF JUDGE; KELLER AND MAZE, JUDGES. MAZE, JUDGE: Eric Cunningham, pro se,appeals from an order of the Fayette Circuit Court dismissing his petition for declaration of rights against the Fayette County Detention Center, and Officer Dwight Hall and Officer Roberts. (Collectively, the Detention Center). We conclude that this matter is now moot because Cunningham is no longer housed at the Detention Center. We further agree with the circuit court that Cunningham's petition failed to state a matter upon which relief could be granted. Hence, we affirm.

On September 12, 2011, Cunningham filed a pro se petition for declaration of inmate rights. At the time the action was filed, Cunningham was a pre-trial detainee housed at the Detention Center. His petition stated that on July 16, 2011, Officer Roberts, an employee of the Detention Center, picked up a pair of his socks which were sitting on top of a television in a common area. Cunningham states that he asked Officer Roberts to return the socks, but Officer Roberts simply threw them in a trash can and told Cunningham to retrieve them from there. Cunningham further states that he filed a grievance with the jail over the incident. His requested relief was denied by Officer Dwight Hall.

In his petition, Cunningham asked the trial court to enter a judgment "declaring that jail officials have no right to dispose of inmates [sic] property without due process of law...", and to order the Detention Center to replace his socks and to pay reasonable attorney fees for this action. The Detention Center responded with a motion to dismiss the petition as frivolous. Cunningham filed his own motion for summary judgment. On October 18, 2011, the trial court granted the Detention Center's motion to dismiss, concluding that Cunningham's petition was without merit on its face and was frivolous. This appeal followed.

The Detention Center first notes that Cunningham is no longer being housed at its facility. Given that all of Cunningham's requests for declaratory relief relate to the conditions of his confinement, the Detention Center argues that this subsequent change in his circumstances renders this action moot for want of a present actual controversy. We agree. In order for a declaratory judgment action to proceed, the movant must show that an actual and justiciable controversy exists involving the specific rights of the parties. Blair v. Hendricks,30 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Ky. App. 2000) overruled on other grounds by Lang v. Sapp,71 S.W.3d 133 (Ky. App. 2002). See also HealthAmerica Corp. of Kentucky v. Humana Health Plan, Inc.,697 S.W.2d 946 (Ky. 1985). Since Cunningham is no longer housed at the Detention Center, there is no present or actual controversy and there is no relief which a court could grant.

Furthermore, Cunningham's petition fails to state a complaint upon which declaratory relief could be granted. As the trial court noted, Cunningham does not allege that Officer Roberts actually deprived him of any property. Officer Roberts merely picked up Cunningham's socks and threw them into an open trash can. Cunningham had an opportunity to retrieve them but chose not to do so. While Officer Roberts's alleged comments could be considered "rude" and the Detention Center's response dismissive, KRS 418.040 does not provide a vehicle for redress of every mere indignity which an inmate may experience while incarcerated. Therefore, the circuit court properly dismissed Cunningham's petition as without merit.

Accordingly, the order of the Fayette Circuit Court is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Eric Cunningham, Pro Se
Lexington, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES: Tracey W. Jones
Lexington, Kentucky


Summaries of

Cunningham v. Fayette Cnty. Det. Ctr.

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
Mar 15, 2013
NO. 2011-CA-002061-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2013)
Case details for

Cunningham v. Fayette Cnty. Det. Ctr.

Case Details

Full title:ERIC CUNNINGHAM APPELLANT v. FAYETTE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, DWIGHT HALL…

Court:Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Date published: Mar 15, 2013

Citations

NO. 2011-CA-002061-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2013)