Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Sublett v. Beavers

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah

February 5, 2018




         This is 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.


         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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.)

         Plaintiff claims that Defendant Beavers received a copy of these records from Defendant Walrod and that on November 20, 2017, Defendant Beavers:

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.

         In his 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.

         Plaintiff 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 dissemination.”

         Plaintiff 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 inmate records.

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. He also requests the Court to “remove the document from public view.”


         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); 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, ...

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.