205 F.3d 1340 (6th Cir. 2000), 99-5348, Goddard v. Kentucky Dept. of Corrections
|Docket Nº:||99-5348, 99-5971.|
|Citation:||205 F.3d 1340|
|Party Name:||Calvin Lee GODDARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||February 07, 2000|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Before WELLFORD, BATCHELDER, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.
Calvin Lee Goddard, a Kentucky prisoner, appeals pro se from a district court order that dismissed his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (appeal No. 99-5348), and a district court order regarding installment payments of the filing fees herein (appeal No. 99-5971). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
On January 4, 1999, Goddard filed a civil rights complaint seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The named Defendants are the Kentucky Department of Corrections ("KDOC"); KDOC Commissioner Doug Sapp; Classification Branch Manager Judith Morris; Ombudsman Patrick Bowzer; and Kentucky Correctional Industries and its Director, Tom Grissom. Goddard also named Northpoint Training Center's Warden James Morgan; Classification and treatment Officer Glenn Dotson; Classification and Treatment Officer Robert Epperson; and Adjustment Officer Carl Jones. At the Green River Correctional Complex, Goddard named the following Defendants: Warden Larry Chandler; Operations Supervisor Roger Blacklock; Grievance Coordinator Mike Riley; Correctional Industries employee Sue Kirby; Correctional Industries security officer Kelly Blair; and Lt. Ron Beck. Goddard claimed: (1) violations of his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) illegal retaliation against him for exercise of his First Amendment rights; (3) cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (4) Fourth Amendment violations; and (5) violations of state regulations. The district court dismissed Goddard's complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
In appeal No. 99-5348, Goddard reasserts his due process, equal protection and retaliation claims. In appeal...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP