Gary Mayfield v. Jessie Ferguson, Warden ( 2021 )

RENDERED: JULY 30, 2021; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-1467-MR
GARY MAYFIELD APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE PHILLIP J. SHEPHERD, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 20-CI-00309
JESSIE FERGUSON, WARDEN APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, KRAMER, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
COMBS, JUDGE: This appeal arises out of a prison disciplinary action.
Appellant, Gary Mayfield (Mayfield), an inmate at the Roederer Correctional
Complex (RCC), appeals from an order of the Franklin Circuit Court dismissing
his petition for declaration of rights. After our review, we affirm.
In July 2019, Mayfield was transferred to RCC. According to the
Kentucky Department of Corrections (DOC) Disciplinary Report Form Part I -
Investigation, on October 3, 2019, “Sgt[.] Bond and Lt.[.] Gound inspected inmate
Gary Mayfield[ʼs] . . . tv. Inmate Mayfield’s tv was found to have been altered by
having the ground pulled out of the eclectrical [sic] plug, causing the tv to be
unsafe.” The report further reflects that Curtis Sherley, the investigating officer,
spoke to Mayfield, who explained how the plug on his television set had been
broken:
It happened at Little Sandy when my locker was pushed
back. From there I was transferred to Green River and
they allowed it. Then from there I was transferred to
here at Roederer where Sgt. Bond plugged it in and said
it was ok. This is something that happened a long time
ago and has never been an issue but if it had been I would
have fixed it when it happened.
An entry on the reverse side of the report dated November 13, 2019, reflects that
Mayfield received a copy of the report, that he had been advised of his right to call
witnesses and to have an inmate legal aid or staff present at the hearing, and that he
waived 24-hour notice.
The hearing was conducted on November 15, 2019. The DOC
Disciplinary Report Form Part II – Hearing/Appeal reflects as follows:
Inmate Mayfield states on audio recording that his due
process rights were adhered to. Legal Aid Robert
Smith . . . was present. Based on the report which states
that inmate Mayfield was found to have been in
possession of a television in which the ground prong had
been broken off, along with camera footage supporting
the report, he is found guilty of the Cat: 5-01, destruction
of property in excess of $100. Penalty imposed shall be
-2-
15 days disciplinary segregation and 60 days GTL [Good
Time Loss] suspended for 60 days.
Mayfield appealed the Adjustment Committee’s decision to the
Warden. By a decision rendered on December 2, 2019, the Warden denied
Mayfield’s appeal, determining that “[t]he due process requirements appear to be
in order. The evidence is sufficient in order to establish a finding of guilt. The
Adjustment Committee’s decision will stand.”
On June 8, 2020, Mayfield filed a petition for declaratory judgment
pursuant to KRS1 418.040 in Franklin Circuit Court. Named as Respondents were:
Jessie Ferguson, Warden; Lt. Christopher Wright, Adjustment Officer; and RCC.
On July 21, 2020, the Respondents filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to CR2
12.02. By an order entered on September 9, 2020, the circuit court granted their
motion as follows in relevant part:
[Mayfield] challenges the disciplinary action by pursuing
this action. He alleges that violations of Correctional
Policies and Procedures (“CPP”) amount to deprivation
of due process. Specifically, he argues that CPP 9.8
requires that facility staff ensure that transferred property
is allowed at an institution and that various institutions
allowed the transfer of the television, and also argues that
his television was disposed of without him having an
opportunity to send the television home or out for repairs
per CPP 17.1.
1
Kentucky Revised Statute.
2
Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure.
-3-
Before the Court is Respondents’ Motion to
Dismiss. Respondents argue that whether or not CPP has
been followed is not the basis for determining whether a
due process violation has occurred. Rather, Respondents
state that inmate disciplinary proceedings require
minimum due process, and that this balancing analysis is
provided by case law rather than through the CPP.
...
Prison disciplinary proceedings require a less
stringent standard of due process. In short, for due
process to be met in a prison disciplinary proceeding,
three requirements must be met: first, the inmate must
have received advance written notice of the charges
against him; second, the inmate must have been
presented with an opportunity to call witnesses and
present documentary evidence; and third, the inmate
must receive a written statement from the fact-finder of
the evidence relied upon and the reasons for disciplinary
action. Superintendent Mass. Correctional Institution,
Walpole, v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). And . . .
there must have been “some evidence” to support the
findings of the disciplinary body, meaning . . . “any
evidence in the disciplinary record that could support the
conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at
455-56.
The circuit court found that Mayfield had received due process and
that some evidence existed to support the findings as required by Hill. The court
explained that Mayfield received advance written notice of the charges against him
in the form of his write-up; that he had an opportunity to call witnesses -- even
though he did not do so; and that he received a copy of a written statement of the
evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Mayfield “did not
-4-
dispute that he possessed the television with the missing ground prong, and
explained how the damage occurred. And, camera footage was considered that
showed the damaged plug.”
Mayfield appeals.3 He contends that he was denied fundamental
fairness in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Section 17 of the Kentucky Constitution by receiving a
disciplinary action for having a missing ground plug on his television. Mayfield
cites Ramirez v. Nietzel, 424 S.W.3d 911, 917 (Ky. 2014), for the proposition that:
[A]ny examination for due process must amount to more
than a glance. Looking deeper here, the mechanism
through which “some evidence” may ultimately have
been presented against Ramirez was fundamentally
flawed. Relying on the existence of “some evidence” to
indicate due process is satisfied becomes a fallacy if the
evidence was produced in a constitutionally deficient
proceeding.
Ramirez4 is not relevant to this case because we have found no constitutional
deficiency. We agree with the circuit court that Mayfield received due process and
3
We note that the only Appellee Mayfield named in his notice of appeal is Jessie Ferguson,
Warden. That naming is sufficient because the Warden is the indispensable party here. Watkins
v. Fannin, 278 S.W.3d 637, 640 (Ky. App. 2009); see Ford v. Frailley, No. 2007-CA-002323-
MR, 2009 WL 484996 (Ky. App. Feb. 27, 2009) (role of adjustment officer merely preliminary
to the wardens’ exercise of final authority).
4
Ramirez is readily distinguishable on its facts. There, the adjustment officer denied the
inmate’s request for a particular witness without sufficient explanation and refused to review
security camera footage of the incident.
-5-
that some evidence existed to support the findings as required by Hill, 472 U.S.
445. Therefore, we adopt the court’s sound analysis as if it were our own.
We AFFIRM the of the Franklin Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Gary Mayfield, pro se Angela T. Dunham
Central City, Kentucky Frankfort, Kentucky
-6-