RODNEY GRIMES v. PHILIP PARKER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
November 22, 2002; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2002-CA-000546-MR
RODNEY GRIMES
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM LYON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE BILL CUNNINGHAM, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 01-CI-00215
v.
PHILIP PARKER
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BARBER, DYCHE, AND TACKETT, JUDGES.
TACKETT, JUDGE:
Rodney Grimes appeals from the dismissal of his
petition for declaratory judgment by the Lyon Circuit Court.
Among other things, Grimes alleges that he was the victim of
discrimination when the Kentucky State Penitentiary refused to
allow a particular person to visit.
Grimes also mentions,
without a particular claim for relief, several incidents wherein
he was disciplined for a number of infractions, all of which he
claims establishes a pattern of discrimination against him.
The
circuit court dismissed his petition on the motion of the warden,
Philip Parker, and the Department of Corrections.
We affirm.
As the circuit court correctly pointed out, Grimes does
not have a protected liberty interest in having particular
visitors.
Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, 109
S.Ct. 1904 (1989), Smith v. O’Dea, Ky., 939 S.W.2d 353 (1997).
The visitor in question, Nigeria Judkins, was not on the list of
approved visitors; while Grimes disputes that the visitor was
Nigeria Judkins but rather was in fact Shanice Rogers, we note
that there is insufficient evidence of racial discrimination to
allow Grimes to proceed on his claim, where there is no protected
liberty interest at issue.
Likewise, we disagree that his action should be
remanded to allow Grimes to state specific grounds for relief,
with respect to the generalized allegation of a pattern of racial
discrimination relating to Grimes’ repeated disciplinary
infractions and corresponding punishment.
As the Department of
Corrections noted in its response filed in the circuit court, the
record reveals nothing less than total compliance with the law
with respect to the disciplinary actions against Grimes.
Grimes’
due process rights were adequately protected at every stage, and
despite his generalized claim of a “cover-up” of civil rights
violations, we reject Grimes’ contention that he is entitled to a
hearing on this matter.
“Prison disciplinary proceedings take
place in a highly charged atmosphere, and prison administrators
must often act swiftly on the basis of evidence that might be
insufficient in less exigent circumstances.”
Superintendent v.
Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 456, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2774, 86 L.Ed.2d 356
(1985).
As long as “some evidence” exists to support the
-2-
disciplinary body’s action, it may not be disturbed on appeal.
Id. at 455.
It is readily apparent from a review of the record
that the prison’s action is supported under this standard, and
accordingly we reject Grimes’ contentions on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lyon
Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Rodney Grimes, Pro Se
Eddyville, Kentucky
John T. Damron
Department of Corrections
Office of General Counsel
Frankfort, Kentucky
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
