Blaine A. Bray v. Kentucky Department of Corrections ( 2022 )

RENDERED: MAY 6, 2022; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2021-CA-1078-MR
BLAINE A. BRAY APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM MUHLENBERG CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE BRIAN WIGGINS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 21-CI-00061
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: GOODWINE, MAZE, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
MAZE, JUDGE: Appellant Blaine A. Bray challenges the summary dismissal of
his petition for a declaration that he is entitled to an award of meritorious good
time credits under Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 197.045. The Muhlenberg
Circuit Court concluded that because meritorious good time awards are purely
discretionary, Bray failed to demonstrate the deprivation of a protected liberty
interest entitling him to the relief he seeks. We agree and affirm the grant of
summary judgment.
The facts are neither complex nor in dispute. Appellant Bray is
currently incarcerated at Green River Correctional Complex in Central City,
Kentucky. After determining that he had not been receiving meritorious good time
credits for several months, Bray inquired into the reason he had not received the
credits. Bray alleged in his petition for a declaration of his entitlement to the
credits that the deputy warden had informed him that he was not entitled to
meritorious good time credit because he had failed to sign up for, nor was he on a
waiting list for, a required substance abuse program. Bray acknowledged in his
petition that he had been recommended to complete a substance abuse program but
argued that such a recommendation was improper because he had not been
convicted of an offense involving drugs or alcohol.
Bray’s petition for a declaration of rights was predicated upon his
contention that the warden’s decision to deny him meritorious good time violates
the due process and equal protection guarantees set out in the Fifth, Sixth, and
Eleventh Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Sections Two,
Three, and Eleven of the Kentucky Constitution.
Citing KRS 197.045 and Anderson v. Parker, 964 S.W.2d 809 (Ky.
App. 1997), the circuit court granted the Department’s motion for summary
-2-
judgment concluding that “[u]nder state law, meritorious good time awards are
purely discretionary.” Accordingly, it held that Bray had “failed to demonstrate
the deprivation of a protected liberty interest” required for a grant of declaratory
relief. This appeal followed.
We commence with a reiteration of the familiar standards by which
appellate courts review a grant of summary judgment. The standard of review for
appeals concerning summary judgment is whether the trial court correctly found
that there were no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party
was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure
(CR) 56.03. Summary “judgment is only proper where the movant shows that the
adverse party could not prevail under any circumstances.” Steelvest, Inc. v.
Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991) (citing Paintsville
Hospital Co. v. Rose, 683 S.W.2d 255 (Ky. 1985)). Consequently, summary
judgment must be granted “[o]nly when it appears impossible for the nonmoving
party to produce evidence at trial warranting a judgment in his favor[.]”
Huddleston v. Hughes, 843 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Ky. App. 1992) (citing Steelvest,
supra). With these principles in mind, we turn to an examination of Bray’s
arguments for reversal of the decision of the circuit court.
As an initial matter, the Department argues that this Court should
decline to address the merits of this appeal on the basis that Bray’s brief fails to
-3-
comply with the dictates of CR 76.12. Although we acknowledge the technical
deficiencies of Bray’s brief, this Court is inclined toward leniency in the case given
Bray’s status as a pro se litigant, as well as the fact that the cited deficiencies have
not hampered the Court’s review of the purely legal arguments presented.
Concerning those arguments, we find no error in the decision of the
circuit court. Although there is some surface appeal to Bray’s argument that good
time credits cannot be withheld on the basis of his failure to enroll in a program he
was never ordered to complete, he cannot prevail on that contention for two
reasons: 1) Bray did not present that argument to the circuit court; and 2) it is at
odds with established caselaw and the plain language of KRS 197.045. First, as
the Department notes, Bray has altered his argument in this forum. Although he
now argues that he was never required to participate in a substance abuse program,
Bray stated in his petition to the circuit court that he had been improperly ordered
to complete a substance abuse program because he had not been convicted of a
crime involving drugs or alcohol. The fact that his current argument was not
presented to the circuit court for review is alone a sufficient basis for affirming the
decision of the circuit court. However, even had that deficiency not precluded our
review, KRS 197.045 clearly dispels Bray’s contention that he has been deprived a
protected interest for which he can receive relief.
-4-
That statute provides in pertinent part:
(1) Any person convicted and sentenced to a state penal
institution:
....
(b) May receive a credit on his or her sentence for:
3. Acts of exceptional service during times
of emergency, awarded at the discretion
of the commissioner in an amount not to
exceed seven (7) days per month.
(Emphases added.) Thus, the unambiguous language of KRS 197.045(1)(b)3.
makes clear that awards of meritorious good time are, as the circuit court
determined, purely discretionary.
Further, caselaw interpreting the statute supports the decision of the
circuit court. Bray’s precise argument was rejected by this Court in Hill v.
Thompson, 297 S.W.3d 892 (Ky. App. 2009), holding:
The law in this Commonwealth as it pertains to awards of
meritorious good time is clear. Such awards are entirely
discretionary and inmates possess no automatic
entitlement to them.
Id. at 897 (citations omitted). Similarly, in Anderson, 964 S.W.2d 809, this Court
upheld the dismissal of Anderson’s petition for a declaration of rights, stating:
This is not a case where the state has created a right
to a good time credit which has not been awarded or
taken from an inmate for misconduct. See, Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d
935 (1974); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S. Ct.
-5-
2293, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1995). In such cases
Fourteenth Amendment “liberty” is implicated entitling
inmates to minimum procedures required by the due
process clause to insure that the state-created right is not
arbitrarily abrogated. No inmate has a right to
meritorious good time under [Corrections Policy and
Procedure] 15.3, it is a privilege bestowed at the
discretion of the Commissioner.
Id. at 810 (emphases added). Thus, as in Hill and Anderson, Bray had no protected
right to the relief he seeks.
We are similarly unconvinced that Bray has established a claim under
the equal protection clause. Although Bray is essentially complaining that the
Department exercised its discretion arbitrarily, a prisoner cannot establish “a
violation of his equal protection rights simply by showing that other inmates were
treated differently. He would have to show that he was victimized because of
some suspect classification, which is an essential element of an equal protection
claim.” Newell v. Brown, 981 F.2d 880, 887 (6th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Because Bray has failed to establish that he is a member of some
suspect classification, his claim under the equal protection clause must fail as well.
Because an award of meritorious good time credit under KRS
197.045(1)(b)3. is completely discretionary, we perceive no error in the
Muhlenberg Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment on Bray’s petition for a
declaration of rights. Having no protected liberty interest in meritorious good time
-6-
awards, Bray cannot prevail on his claim that the Department has deprived a
guaranteed right.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Muhlenberg Circuit
Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Blaine A. Bray, pro se Allison R. Brown
Central City, Kentucky Frankfort, Kentucky
-7-