United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah
DAMIEN A. SUBLETT PLAINTIFF
JAMES BEAVERS et al. DEFENDANTS
B. RUSSELL, SENIOR JUDGE
a pro se action brought by a convicted prisoner. The
Court has granted Plaintiff Damien A. Sublett 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.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
has filed a complaint and supplemental complaint in this
action. He sues two Defendants in their individual capacities
- James Beavers, of Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP)
Internal Affairs; and Wendy M. Walrod, Kentucky Department of
Corrections (KDOC), Assistant Branch Manager, Offender
Information Services. Plaintiff claims that these Defendants
released and/or read confidential information from his prison
record to the public.
first explains that he filed a prior action in this Court
against officials at KSP where he is incarcerated. See
Sublett v. Sheets et al., Civil Action No.
5:15-cv-199-TBR. In the instant action, Plaintiff complains
that Defendant Walrod violated his rights by producing a
certified copy of his disciplinary reports, PREA complaints,
and investigations in the prior action. He attaches as an
exhibit to his supplemental complaint a document signed by
Defendant Walrod on October 24, 2017, in which she certified
that she was producing a true and accurate copy of these
records for that action (DN 6-2). Plaintiff also attaches a
copy of the Witness and Exhibit List filed by one of the
defendants in that action which includes several of
Plaintiff's disciplinary reports. (Id.)
claims that Defendant Beavers received a copy of these
records from Defendant Walrod and that on November 20, 2017,
read sexual action of acts made by [Plaintiff] as of
masturbation and sexual acts classifying [Plaintiff] as a
aggressive sexual preditor and sexual aggressor at female
staff . . . [Defendant] Beavers . . . read to the public
sexual acts that [Plaintiff] would expose his persons to
female as a sexual motive. These documents are currently
Public Record from the Prison Rape Elimination and
Disciplinary Report. [Plaintiff] has been taunted by KSP
Security Staff via a calling of [Plaintiff] a sexual deviant
and sexual preditor. This has caused [Plaintiff] great shame
and embarrassment to where [Plaintiff] tried to kill himself.
This action by Wendy Walrod of releasing these confidential
private records to [Defendant] Beavers and [Defendant]
Beavers to the public some 10 or more sexual document in
which [Plaintiff] was performing a sexual act is currently
still being accessed by the public.
supplemental complaint, Plaintiff clarifies as follows:
[Defendant] Walrod released these confidential document per
C.P.P. 6.6 and KRS 61.878 without Sublett consent to Megan P.
O'Reilly, [the attorney representing a defendant in
Sublett v. Sheets et al., 5:15-cv-199].
[O'Reilly] had Department of Corr. Internal Affairs
employeed at [KSP] [Defendant] Beavers read in open court
[Plaintiff]'s disciplinary reports and PREA complaints .
. . to the public on November 20, 2017. [Defendant] Beavers
read explicit sexual acts performed by [Plaintiff] and
informing the Public that [Plaintiff] is a sexual aggressor
per PREA standard. [Defendant] Beavers read out loud over 10
document related to [Plaintiff]'s personal sexual acts.
writes that as a result of Defendants' actions, he tried
to kill himself for the first time in his life and that
“the humiliation follow me back to the prison and my
family read it on the internet.” He then states:
“Information regarding private sexual matters warrants
constitutional protecting against public
claims that Defendants' actions violated his rights under
the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff also attaches to his
complaint provisions of the Kentucky Open Records Act and
institutional policies concerning the confidentiality of
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. He
also requests the Court to “remove the document from
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); and 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, ...