Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miles v. Kennington

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

December 1, 2017

CURTIS LOVELL JOHNSON MILES, Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW KENNINGTON ET AL., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          DAVID J. HALE, JUDGE.

         This is a civil rights action brought by a pretrial detainee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted pro se Plaintiff Curtis Lovell Johnson Miles leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, the action will be dismissed.

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff brings this action against four named Defendants - Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) Officer Matthew Kennington, in both his official and individual capacities; Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC) Manager Johnathon Hall, in both his official and individual capacities; Commonwealth's Attorney Tom Wine, in his official capacity only; and Circuit Court Judge Audra Eckerle, in her official capacity only. Plaintiff also names “unknown caseworkers” from “Louisville Probation and Parole” as Defendants in both their official and individual capacities.

         Plaintiff's allegations are based upon prior criminal arrests and convictions. Plaintiff's allegations begin in 2004 when he states that he was charged with burglary. Plaintiff claims that he spent several months in jail before this charge was dismissed. Plaintiff alleges that he was then arrested for the same crime in 2005 and spent six months in jail before the charge was again dismissed. Plaintiff states that, in 2006, he was again arrested on the same charge and then spent 21 months in jail before being unlawfully convicted of the crime and receiving a 10-year sentence. Plaintiff claims that the LMPD violated his constitutional rights by continuing to arrest and charge him for a crime “that had been legally dismissed.”

         Plaintiff also claims that the 21-month period that he spent in jail between his final arrest and ultimate conviction violated his right to a speedy trial. He further claims that his constitutional rights were violated by his conviction because he had verbally retracted his guilty plea and was not present in the courtroom when he was sentenced.

         Plaintiff next claims that unknown caseworkers at “Louisville Parole and Probation” violated his rights when they calculated his sentence in October 2007. He alleges that these case workers “manipulated, modified, and sabotaged” the calculation of his sentence which led to him receiving a longer sentence than he should have received. He alleges that these individuals changed his arrest date and his parole eligibility date. Plaintiff also alleges that the “Parole Board” violated his rights in 2008 by giving Plaintiff “a 2-year deferment” and by “reviewing Plaintiff” two months after his review date.

         Plaintiff further alleges that he was charged with escape in 2009. Plaintiff claims that the KDOC unlawfully charged him with escape because he was “8-months past his . . . outdate” when he was charged and KDOC had failed to release him when he had satisfied his sentence. Plaintiff claims that the KDOC further violated his rights by using forged documents that showed that he “was a Class-D, PFO-1 sentence, ” miscalculating his jail-credit time, refusing to give Plaintiff all of his accrued credits at the same time, withholding Plaintiff's meritorious “good time, ” and unlawfully holding Plaintiff in custody past his minimum outdate. Plaintiff claims that as result of these violations he received “another 5-years for escape and burglary in 2009.”

         Plaintiff next claims that when he tried to contact the news media about his plight, the KDOC sent Plaintiff to “Class-D Jails” even though it is unlawful to send prisoners with more than a 10-year sentence to such facilities. Plaintiff alleges that the KDOC sent him to these jails as a form of punishment for contacting the news media. He further alleges that these jails do not allow prisoners access to a law library and that one jail read all outgoing mail “if you're targeted” and all incoming mail “if you're targeted or not!”

         Plaintiff also states that, in 2013, he filed a motion in the circuit court asking for a sentence recalculation and to be called back to court. Plaintiff states that he wanted to tell the court how his prior judge, Louisville Probation and Parole, and the KDOC “had conspired to manipulate, modify, and sabotage [his] original 10-year sentence to keep [him] incarcerated as long as possible.” Plaintiff claims that Defendant Chief Circuit Court Judge Eckerle violated his rights by denying his motion “to be called back to court” and by ordering the KDOC, the same organization that had “sabotaged” his original sentence, to recalculate his sentence.

         Plaintiff then states that the main reason the agencies and individuals named in this action violated his rights is because he contacted the news media in 2007 and informed them that LMDC had a “staph infection epidemic.” Plaintiff also alleges that he tried to use his knowledge of criminal activity being committed by members of the Kentucky Department of Transportation to get out of jail.

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and an apology from Defendants.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental entities, officers, and/or employees, this Court must review the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.