MICHAEL K. PAULLEY v. KENTUCKY STATE PAROLE BOARD MEMBERSAnnotate this Case
March 13, 1998; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
MICHAEL K. PAULLEY
APPEAL FROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DENNIS FRITZ, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 96-CI-00391
KENTUCKY STATE PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS
* * * * * * *
ABRAMSON, BUCKINGHAM, and EMBERTON, Judges.
Michael K. Paulley appeals from the trial
court's dismissal of his petition for a declaratory judgment, in
which he sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the
members of the Kentucky Parole Board.
Having reviewed the record
and the applicable law, we affirm.
On February 8, 1996, a panel of the Kentucky Parole
Board declined to place Paulley on parole.
The Board's decision
was based upon many grounds, two of which Paulley subsequently
Paulley denied that he had a "misdemeanor record" and
challenged the conclusion that "violence [was] involved in the
crimes" for which he was convicted.
On March 29, 1996, Paulley's
CR 60.03 motion in Jefferson Circuit Court to correct his
presentence investigation report was denied for lack of
On June 10, 1996, the Oldham Circuit Court dismissed an
action (96-CI-00187) brought by Paulley against the Department of
Probation and Parole, the Kentucky State Parole Board, and
Jefferson Circuit Judge Kenneth Corey for a declaratory judgment
that Paulley's presentence investigation report contained
The trial court dismissed that claim for
improper venue, stating that the claim properly belonged in
Jefferson Circuit Court.
Finally, on August 8, 1996, Paulley filed this claim
against the members of the Kentucky Parole Board for a
declaratory judgment that the Parole Board had deprived him of
due process when it denied parole to him based upon erroneous
Five days later, the Oldham Circuit Court issued an
order dismissing Paulley's petition because it was
identical to another declaratory judgment action
which was filed on April 11, 1996, involving the
same claims. That case, File No. 96-CI-00187,
Michael K. Paulley v. Department of Probation and
Parole, et al was dismissed on June 10, 1996 with
a Finding that proper jurisdiction was within the
Jefferson Circuit Court, since the Petitioner's
sentence originated from Jefferson County and
since his claims that his presentence
investigation report, which was completed in
Jefferson County, contained false information.
This Court, therefore finds that this action
is identical to that previously filed and in
accordance with KRS 454.405 the same BE AND
IS HEREBY DISMISSED.
On August 19, 1996, Paulley filed a motion to
reconsider the trial court's August 13, 1996 order, arguing that
the current case differed from the prior, dismissed case.
response to Paulley's motion, the trial court issued an order on
October 1, 1996, reiterating the reasons it offered in its
earlier order and adding that Belcher v. Kentucky Parole Board,
Ky. App., 917 S.W.2d 584 (1996), rendered the members of the
Kentucky Parole Board absolutely immune from suit.
court also required Paulley to "provide an answer to this Court
within twenty (20) days why this matter should not be dismissed
and why the Belcher case mentioned above does not apply to the
On October 10, 1996, Paulley filed his answer to the
trial court's October 1, 1996 order.
The trial court denied
Paulley's petition for declaratory judgment a day later, finding
that the type of relief sought by Paulley's petition was among
the types of claims "sought to be avoided by the Belcher
From the order dismissing the petition, Paulley
As previously mentioned, the trial court based its
initial dismissal in this case upon the authority of KRS 454.405,
which became effective on July 15, 1996.
KRS 454.405(1) provides
in part that a court may dismiss an inmate's civil action "if
satisfied that the action is malicious or harassing or if
satisfied that the action is legally without merit or factually
KRS 454.405(3) requires the trial court dismissing
an inmate's civil action to "include as part of its order
specific findings as to the reasons for the dismissal."
When the trial court dismissed Paulley's petition for
declaratory relief on August 13, 1996, it cited the identical
nature of that case to the earlier, dismissed Oldham Circuit
petition for declaratory relief as the basis for its dismissal
under KRS 454.405.
While the petitions themselves were not
identical, the gist of each was the same:
February 8, 1996 denial of parole.
Paulley challenged the
We agree with the trial
Pursuant to the trial court's supervisory authority to
control its own docket, as well as KRS 454.405, the trial court
properly dismissed Paulley's repetitious petition.
affirm the trial court's procedural dismissal of Paulley's
petition, it is unnecessary for us to address the issue of
whether the individual members of the Parole Board are immune
from suits seeking declaratory relief.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the October 11, 1996
Order of Oldham Circuit Court.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
Michael K. Paulley, pro se
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
No brief filed