Frederick Radford v. Timothy Lane Warden

RENDERED: JUNE 20, 2025; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0715-MR FREDERICK RADFORD APPELLANT APPEAL FROM MUHLENBERG CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE BRIAN WIGGINS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-CI-00269 TIMOTHY LANE, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS WARDEN OF GREEN RIVER CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX; AND COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY CABINET, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS APPELLEES OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: CALDWELL, CETRULO, AND A. JONES, JUDGES. JONES, A., JUDGE: Frederick M. Radford, pro se, appeals from the Muhlenberg Circuit Court’s order dismissing his civil complaint, entered April 23, 2024. We affirm the circuit court’s order. BACKGROUND Radford is an inmate currently serving a sentence with the Department of Corrections at its Green River Correctional Complex. The appellees (collectively “DOC”) are Timothy Lane, the warden of the Green River facility; and essentially the Department of Corrections (i.e., the agency itself, along with Lane in his official capacity). Radford alleges that, on May 9, 2023, he was traversing a walkway leading to the prison’s yard when he crossed an unlevelled steel metal grate that caused him to “stump his footing and trip, causing him to fall,” injuring him and necessitating medical treatment. Following this incident, Radford filed a grievance with the DOC and in the field marked “action requested” asked the agency “To repare [sic] the walk way, no retaliation for filing this grievance.” (Record (“R.”) at 9.) On May 16, 2023, in the field at the bottom of Radford’s grievance form marked “informal resolution stage,” the grievance aide wrote: “We are looking into this matter and possibly doing some paving going back to T-building.” Id. Radford was not satisfied with this resolution, and he elevated it through the prison administrative process. At each step, the administration agreed with Radford that the location -2- where he fell should be safe. Ultimately, the Commissioner issued the following ruling: I have reviewed your grievance. As stated at all levels of the grievance the Warden has approved the paving of the area that is outlined in the grievance. Thus it appears your action requested will be met. However, it may take a short while until the actual repairs are done. Therefore I concur with the facility on this matter. (R. at 13.) On July 20, 2023, Radford filed a complaint in Muhlenberg Circuit Court against the appellees asserting they were aware of the defective condition which caused his injury. Radford claimed the appellees’ inaction violated his rights under Sections 2 and 17 of the Kentucky Constitution and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. He also claimed the appellees were liable under “all other applicable State Statutes and Rules of law for gross negligence[.]” (R. at 4.) Radford requested a jury trial on his damages, which he asserted amounted to $50,000. Notably, Radford asserted in his complaint that he “exhausted any and all administrative remedies pursuant to KRS[1] 454.415[.]” On February 2, 2024, Radford moved for default judgment because the appellees had not answered his complaint. On April 11, 2024, the appellees 1 Kentucky Revised Statute. -3- responded by moving to dismiss pursuant to CR2 12.02. The circuit court granted their motion on April 23, 2024, stating in its order – consistent with the substance of the appellees’ motion – that Radford’s claims were barred because: (1) Radford had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by KRS 454.415; (2) sovereign immunity precluded his claims against the DOC; and (3) qualified immunity precluded his claims against Warden Lane in his individual capacity. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS Two of the three overarching assertions Radford makes in his brief are as follows. First, he believes the circuit court erred because, from all appearances of the record, it never adjudicated his motion for default judgment. Continuing in this vein, he adds that he was entitled to a default judgment because the appellees never filed an answer in this matter. Second, he argues the circuit court failed to provide him an adequate opportunity to respond to the appellees’ motion to dismiss prior to entering its judgment.