Opinion
NO. 2015-CA-001096-MR
07-22-2016
JEREMY W. ROBERTS APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LADONNA THOMPSON, COMMISSIONER APPELLEES
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Jeremy W. Roberts, Pro Se Burgin, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Linda M. Keeton Department of Corrections Frankfort, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE THOMAS D. WINGATE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 15-CI-00402 OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: KRAMER, CHIEF JUDGE; DIXON AND TAYLOR, JUDGES. DIXON, JUDGE: Jeremy W. Roberts (Roberts) brings this pro se appeal of an order of the Franklin Circuit Court denying his petition for a declaration of rights. He alleges he is entitled to additional meritorious good time credits. Because we hold that the decision as to whether to award meritorious good time credits is entirely within the discretion of the Department of Corrections (DOC), and because we can determine no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Analysis
Roberts alleges that he is entitled to relief under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution because he is being denied additional meritorious good time credits under Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 197.045. Roberts receives 7 days of good time monthly, and he asserts that he had been treated differently from other inmates who receive 10 days of good time monthly. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Roberts filed a petition for a declaration of rights over this matter in the Franklin Circuit Court on May 8, 2015. The circuit court entered an order on June 26, 2015, dismissing Roberts' petition on the grounds that granting meritorious good time is completely within the discretion of the DOC. This appeal follows.
KRS 197.045(1)(b) provides in pertinent part that
(1) Any person convicted and sentenced to a state penal institution:
(b) May receive a credit on his or her sentence for:
1. Good behavior in an amount not exceeding ten (10) days for each month served, to be determined by the department from the conduct of the prisoner;
2. Performing exceptionally meritorious service or performing duties of outstanding importance in connection with institutional operations and programs, awarded at the discretion of the commissioner in an amount not to exceed seven (7) days per month; and
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.Roberts argues that he is entitled to additional meritorious good time credit under KRS 197.045(1)(b)(1), because he resides in the honors dorm and has had good behavior since the time that the entered the facility.
Roberts' argument is without merit. In Hill v. Thompson, 297 S.W.3d 892 (Ky. App. 2009), this Court stated that "[t]he 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 (internal citations omitted). In Anderson v. Parker, 964 S.W.2d 809 (Ky. App. 1997), this Court examined the record to determine if the lower court had abused its discretion in ruling that the appellant had not been entitled to additional meritorious good time. Id. at 810. A panel of this Court found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appellant's petition for a declaration of rights, noting that "[t]here are absolutely no facts alleged which would indicate an abuse of discretion in this case by prison administrators . . . ." Id. (footnote omitted). Roberts has similarly not alleged any such facts in the present case. Having reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion by the DOC. Therefore, we discern no error in the circuit court's dismissal of Roberts' petition.
We are similarly unconvinced that Roberts has established a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Roberts essentially claims that the DOC has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, but 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). Because Roberts has failed to establish that he is a member of some suspect classification, his claim under the Equal Protection Clause must fail.
The Franklin Circuit Court's order dismissing Roberts' petition for a declaration of rights is therefore affirmed.
Conclusion
Because granting meritorious good time credit under KRS 197.045(1)(b)(1) is completely within the discretion of the DOC, and because our review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion, the order of the Franklin Circuit Court dismissing Roberts' petition for a declaration of rights is affirmed.
TAYLOR, JUDGE, CONCURS.
KRAMER, CHIEF JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Jeremy W. Roberts, Pro Se
Burgin, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Linda M. Keeton
Department of Corrections
Frankfort, Kentucky