Stephenson v. Cox

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky
DecidedFebruary 1, 2024
Docket3:23-cv-00083
StatusUnknown

This text of Stephenson v. Cox (Stephenson v. Cox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stephenson v. Cox, (E.D. Ky. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION FRANKFORT

BRISON STEPHENSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-00083-GFVT ) v. ) ) DARRELL COX, et al., ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND ORDER Defendants. ) *** *** *** ***

Plaintiff Brison Stephenson is confined at the Oldham County Detention Center in La Grange, Kentucky. Stephenson has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [R. 1.] The Court has granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis by separate Order. The Court must review the complaint prior to service of process and dismiss any claim that 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. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; Hill v. Lappin, 630 F. 3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). At this stage, the Court accepts all non-conclusory factual allegations in the complaint as true and liberally construes its legal claims in the plaintiff’s favor. Davis v. Prison Health Servs., 679 F.3d 433, 437-38 (6th Cir. 2012). Stephenson’s complaint describes events occurring while he was confined at the Shelby County Detention Center (“SCDC”) in Shelby County, Kentucky, from May through August, 2022. All of the named defendants were employed at SCDC during that period. [R. 1 at 2-3, 8.] Mr. Stephenson’s first category of allegations assert a claim that he was denied access to the courts. He indicates that shortly after he arrived at SCDC in late May 2022, Captain Robert Gravett did not give him direct access to its law library. He also requested that officers provide him with copies of specific statutes and legal definitions; sometimes these requests were heeded, sometimes not. Mr. Stephenson made additional requests to visit the law library and for a pen to write with, both of which went unanswered. [R. 1 at 2-3.] He states that he wished to file a suppression motion in his state criminal case1 and a dilatory notice of appeal in a domestic

violence case which had closed several months before.2 Id. at 5-6. Later, when he was being prepared for transport to a court hearing in his state criminal case, Stephenson told Jailer Cox that he needed copies of various legal papers. Cox stated that he was focused on getting Mr. Stephenson to the courthouse and did not retrieve Mr. Stephenson’s legal papers. Mr. Stephenson indicates that Lieutenant Orvale Brown also neglected to give him his legal papers on a prior occasion. The state court charges against Stephenson were dismissed following the latter hearing. [R. 1 at 7.] Mr. Stephenson’s second claim is that Jailer Cox declined to waive booking and housing fees charged by SCDC even though Mr. Stephenson was not convicted in his state criminal

cases. [R. 1 at 6-7.]

1See https://kcoj.kycourts.net/CourtNet/Search/CaseAtAGlance?county=106&court=1&division=CI& caseNumber=21-CR-00254&caseTypeCode=CR&client_id=0 (accessed January 23, 2024). The docket indicates that Mr. Stephenson was represented by counsel during these proceedings until the criminal charges were dismissed on October 12, 2022.

2See https://kcoj.kycourts.net/CourtNet/Search/CaseAtAGlance?county=106&court=1&division=DI& caseNumber=21-D-00082-001&caseTypeCode=DV&client_id=0 (accessed January 23, 2024). The docket reveals that in June 2022, the Shelby County District Court sentenced Mr. Stephenson to six months imprisonment for violating a domestic violence order that had been entered in August 2021. Mr. Stephenson was represented by counsel during this proceeding. Third, Mr. Stephenson alleges that following his booking into SCDC, Deputy Kelsey Torres assigned him to a cell at SCDC where all of his cellmates were white except for one “Mexican.” When Lieutenant Larry Donavon escorted him to the cell, Mr. Stephenson expressed concern about the racial composition of the cell, but Donovan stated that he “doesn’t make the rules” and placed Mr. Stephenson into his assigned cell.3 At some point thereafter, six

white inmates assaulted Stephenson. [R. 1 at 3.] An SCDC nurse who treated Stephenson’s injuries allegedly stated that the white inmates in the cell were known for racially motivated assaults. During this conversation, Major Sharon Hardin allegedly told Mr. Stephenson that he was assaulted because he had been “talking crap.” Major Hardin disavowed being racially biased, but allegedly mocked Stephenson when he later passed out. Mr. Stephenson indicates that he was returned to the general population when he still had a black eye and “a possible broken arm and concussion headaches.” When he requested a follow up medical appointment, he was examined and prescribed ibuprofen for five days.4 [R. 1 at 4-5] Mr. Stephenson claims that the defendants violated his rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment, and seeks monetary compensation. [R. 1 at 2-8, 13.] Having reviewed these matters, the Court will dismiss the first and second claims but direct a response to the third. Mr. Stephenson’s first claim, liberally construed, contends that SCDC Captain Robert Gravett, Lieutenant Orvale Brown, and Jailer Darrell Cox impeded his access to the courts by not providing him with access to the law library, case citations, and his own legal papers. This claim

3 Mr. Stephenson does not identify his race, but the Oldham County Detention Center indicates that he is Black. See http://www.oldhamcountyjail.com/InmateRoster/OCDC_inmatelist.html (accessed January 23, 2024).

4 Mr. Stephenson does not appear to assert a claim regarding his medical care and does not name any health care provider as a defendant. must be dismissed for several reasons. An access-to-courts claim is “a case within a case,” meaning the plaintiff must allege “the law and facts sufficient to establish both the interference with his access to the courts, and the non-frivolous nature of the claim that was lost.” Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App’x 608, 612 (6th Cir. 2011). Stephenson does not explain the nature of

the claims he wished to assert or plausibly indicate their non-frivolous nature. Absent an allegation of prejudice, this claim fails. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996) (noting that the plaintiff must adequately and specifically plead intentional conduct that caused actual prejudice or injury to an otherwise meritorious claim). And, as stated in notes 1 and 2 above, in both of the court cases that Mr. Stephenson indicates he wished to file something, he was represented by an attorney. That fact alone satisfied Stephenson’s right of access to the courts: where a defendant is represented by counsel in his criminal case, his constitutional right of access to the courts in that proceeding is satisfied as a matter of law. Holt v. Pitts, 702 F.2d 639, 640 (6th Cir. 1983); see also Cooper v. Shelby County Justice Center, No. 99-6365, 2000 WL 924604, at *2 (6th Cir. June 26, 2000) (“Since counsel was appointed to represent Cooper in the

pending criminal proceedings, his access to the court has been protected.”). These claims will therefore be dismissed. Mr. Stephenson next complains that Jailer Cox did not waive the booking fees levied and collected by the jail even after the state charges against him were dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lewis v. Casey
518 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Hill v. Lappin
630 F.3d 468 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
Roy Brown v. Linda Matauszak
415 F. App'x 608 (Sixth Circuit, 2011)
Gary William Holt v. Jerry Pitts, Sheriff
702 F.2d 639 (Sixth Circuit, 1983)
Davis v. Prison Health Services
679 F.3d 433 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
Darrell Wingo v. Tennessee Department of Corrections
499 F. App'x 453 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Stephenson v. Cox, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephenson-v-cox-kyed-2024.