LAWRENCE v. VERTNER TAYLOR AND WILLIAM SEABOLD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
FEBRUARY 11, 2005; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2003-CA-002782-MR
LAWRENCE FROMAN; THOMAS WAYNE MITCHELL;
HANK MITCHELL; RANDALL BURKE; ROBERT
HICKS; LESTER CAUDILL; WILLIAM TRULOCK;
CLARK HICKS; JOHN DUNN; JAMES OLDHAM;
ROBERT JACKSON; GARY SMITH; LONNIE WOODALL;
AND KEITH MORGAN
v.
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE PAUL W. ROSENBLUM, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 03-CI-00650
VERTNER TAYLOR AND WILLIAM
SEABOLD
APPELLEES
OPINION
VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
JUDGE.1
COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE; BARBER, JUDGE; MILLER, SENIOR
COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE:
This is an appeal from an order entered by
the Oldham Circuit Court that dismissed an action against prison
1
Senior Judge John D. Miller sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the
Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and
KRS 21.580.
officials and the Department of Corrections brought by eighteen
inmates housed at Kentucky State Reformatory.
We vacate and
remand.
In a complaint filed October 8, 2003, the inmates
alleged that prison officials and the Department of Corrections
had subjected them to cruel and unusual punishment in violation
of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution (and other constitutional and statutory provisions)
by failing to provide them with adequate clothing; by failing to
provide them with adequate medical treatment and supplies; by
failing to protect them from violent inmates; and by failing to
address deplorable conditions associated with over-crowding at
the institution.
They also alleged that they had been denied
proper access to the courts.
On November 19, 2003, Thomas Mitchell, one of the
original inmate-plaintiffs, filed an amended complaint
indicating that he had been denied medically essential catheters
for a period of approximately ten days.
Therefore, he had no
choice but to re-use a catheter repeatedly.
As a result,
Mitchell alleged that he had been rushed to a nearby hospital
after a portion of that catheter splintered inside his bladder,
causing pain and injury.
The defendants moved to dismiss the inmates’ complaint
and the amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant
-2-
to CR2 12.02(f).
On December 1, 2003, the trial court granted
the defendants’ motion to dismiss and specifically rejected
Mitchell’s claim that the defendants had shown deliberate
indifference to his need for medical supplies.
The court
concluded that the “delay in receiving medical supplies resulted
from (Mitchell’s) failure to fill out the appropriate request
forms.”
The trial court also rejected the inmates’ due process
and equal protection claims, claims arising under the Kentucky
Constitution, and claims arising under numerous state and
federal statutes.
This appeal followed.
Of various appellants, Mitchell alone has filed a
brief with this Court.3
response.
The appellees have not filed a brief in
We are authorized by the provisions of CR 76.12(8)(c)
to treat the appellees’ failure to file a brief as a confession
of error and to reverse the judgment summarily.
Nevertheless,
we have undertaken a review of the merits of the appeal.
After
carefully examining the record, we conclude that the trial court
erred in dismissing Mitchell’s action.
Consequently, we vacate
and remand for further proceedings.
In a motion filed with the court on November 25, 2003,
Mitchell noted that the defendants had relied upon matters
2
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
3
Before his brief was filed on February 6, 2004, Mitchell was transferred
from Kentucky State Reformatory to Green River Correctional Complex in
Central City, Kentucky.
-3-
outside the pleadings to support their motion to dismiss.
Consequently, he argued that their motion should be treated as
one for summary judgment and that he should be permitted an
opportunity to present additional relevant material.
We agree.
CR 12.02 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
If, on a motion asserting the defense that
the pleading fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, matters outside
the pleading are presented to and not
excluded by the court, the motion shall be
treated as one for summary judgment and
disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all
parties shall be given reasonable
opportunity to present all material made
pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.
A matter outside the pleadings (information contained
in the exhibit attached to the motion to dismiss) was presented
to the trial court for its consideration.
That information
directly contradicted Mitchell’s assertions that prison
officials had failed -- with deliberate indifference -- to
provide him with essential medical supplies.
Consequently, we
believe that submission of the extraneous material served to
convert the defendants’ motion to dismiss into a motion for
summary judgment.
Therefore, before the court entered an order
dismissing his action, Mitchell was entitled to an opportunity
to present facts to establish the existence of genuine issues of
material fact with respect to his various claims.
-4-
We make no observation as to Mitchell’s ultimate
ability to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
remand.
Our holding is restricted to declaring that the
defendants’ motion should have been treated as one for summary
judgment to be disposed of pursuant to the provisions of CR 56.
Mitchell was entitled to sufficient notice of that fact and
accordingly should have been afforded an opportunity to respond
by developing evidence to establish the prima facie elements of
his claims.
The order of the Oldham Circuit Court dismissing the
action is vacated, and this matter is remanded for additional
proceedings.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
Thomas Mitchell, pro se
Central City, Kentucky
-5-
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.
