govinfo:USCOURTS-kyed-0_23-cv-00014-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
NORTHERN DIVISION 
AT ASHLAND 
 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-14-DLB 
 
GARY KEIM, PLAINTIFF 
 
 
v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
 
CONNIE DAY, et al., DEFENDANTS 
 
*** *** *** *** 
 Plaintiff Gary Keim is a prisoner current ly confined at the Little Sandy Correctional 
Complex in Sandy Hook, Kentucky.  Proceeding without an attorney, Keim has filed a civil 
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Connie Day and Dannel 
Brown.  (Doc. #1).  By prior Order, t he Court granted Keim’s motion to proceed in forma 
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.  (Doc. #6).  Thus, the Court must conduct a 
preliminary review of Keim’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A.   
On initial screening, a district court must  dismiss any claim that is frivolous or 
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief 
from a defendant who is immu ne from such relief.  McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 
601, 607-08 (6th Cir. 1997).  The Court evaluates Keim’s complaint under a more lenient 
standard because he is not represented by an attorney.  Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 
94 (2007); Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2003).  At this stage, the Court 
accepts the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, and his legal claims are liberally 
construed in his favor.  Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).   
Case: 0:23-cv-00014-DLB-EBA     Doc #: 14     Filed: 09/27/23     Page: 1 of 5 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
2 
 
Keim’s complaint alleges that he has  been disabled since 2006 and was in a 
wheelchair when he was confined at Green River Correctional Complex (“GRCC”).  
However, he states that after he was transferred to Southeast State Correctional Complex 
(“SSCC”), Day (the Medical Director at SSCC) and Brown (a nurse practitioner at SSCC) 
denied him access to a wheelchair and took his cane, causing him pain and suffering and 
leaving him without a way to access the “chowhall” and handicapped showers and toilets.  
(Doc. #1).1  He further alleges that Brown would not provide Keim a pass required to wear 
sweatpants in the yard, which Brown claims that he needed.   
Based upon these allegations, Keim sues  Day and Brown in their respective 
individual capacities for deliberate indifferenc e to his serious medical needs in violation 
of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.  He also claims that Day and Brown violated 
his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights  by blocking his access to the courts by 
throwing away grievances and/or not responding to  grievances.  (Doc. #1 at p. 15).  As 
relief, he seeks monetary damages and an injunction directing Defendants to comply with 
the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. 
After reviewing the complaint pursuant  to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, the Court 
concludes that Keim’s Fourteenth Am endment claims based upon Defendants’ 
responses to his grievances must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief 
may be granted, as prison officials are not liable under § 1983 for denying or failing to act 
on grievances.  Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 576 (6th Cir. 2008).  See also Nwaebo v. 
Hawk-Sawyer, 100 F. App’x 367, 369 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing  Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 
 
1 In his complaint, Keim alleges that both Day and Brown are employed by Wellpath, a private 
entity providing medical care to inmates pursuant to a contract with the Commonwealth of 
Kentucky.  (Doc. #1 at p. 2). 
Case: 0:23-cv-00014-DLB-EBA     Doc #: 14     Filed: 09/27/23     Page: 2 of 5 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
3 
 
295, 300 (6th Cir.1999)).  Nor does Keim’s complaint adequately allege a claim of 
interference with his access to the courts, which is a First Amendment claim (not a 
Fourteenth Amendment clai m).  To state a clai m for denial of access to the courts, a 
plaintiff must show actual injury  to a nonfrivolous legal claim.  Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 
343, 353–355 (1996).   “Examples of actual  prejudice to pending or contemplated 
litigation include having a case  dismissed, being unable to file a complaint, and missing 
a court-imposed deadline.”  Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 578 (6th Cir. 2005).  See 
also Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (“P laintiffs must demonstrate, 
for example, that the inadequacy of the prison law library or the available legal assistance 
caused such actual injury as the late filing of a court document or  the dismissal of an 
otherwise meritorious claim.”).   
Here, Keim does not describe any particula r legal claim that he was hindered or 
prevented from asserting because of either Day or Brown’s responses (or non-responses) 
to his grievances, thus he fails to adequately allege an access-to-courts claim.  Brown v. 
Matauszak, 415 F. App’x 608, 612 (6th Cir. 2011) (adequate pleading of access-to-courts 
claim requires allegation of actual injury to s pecific claim, allegation of the facts and the 
law in the underlying claim, and demonstrati on that underlying claim was non-frivolous) 
(citing Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002)); Clark v. Johnston, 413 F. App’x 
804, 812 (6th Cir. 2011).  
However, the Court will allow Keim’s  Eighth Amendment claims based upon his 
allegations that Brown and Day were each deliberately indifferent to his serious medical 
needs to proceed.  Bec ause Keim is proceeding in forma pauperis , the United States 
Case: 0:23-cv-00014-DLB-EBA     Doc #: 14     Filed: 09/27/23     Page: 3 of 5 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
4 
 
Marshals Service (“USMS”) will serve Day and Brown with a summons and copy of the 
complaint on his behalf.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 
1. Keim’s First Amendment denial of access to the court claims and 
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clai ms as alleged in his complaint 
(Doc. #1) are DISMISSED; 
2. Keim’s Eighth Amendment clai ms against Defendants Connie Day and 
Dannel Brown REMAIN PENDING; 
3. The Deputy Clerk shall prepare two (2 ) “Service Packets” for service upon 
Connie Day and Dannel Brown.  Each Service Packet shall include:  
a. a completed summons form; 
b. the Complaint (Doc. #1);  
c. the Order granting Plaintiff in  forma pauperis status (Doc. #6); 
d. this Order; and  
e. a completed USM Form 285.  
4. The Deputy Clerk shall deliver t he Service Packets to the USMS in 
Lexington, Kentucky and note the date of delivery in the docket;  
5. The United States Marshals Serv ice shall make arrangements with the 
appropriate officials at the Southeas t State Correctional Complex to 
personally serve Defendants Connie Day and Dannel Brown at the following 
address: 
Southeast State Correctional Complex  
327 Correctional Road  
Wheelwright, KY 41669 
 
Case: 0:23-cv-00014-DLB-EBA     Doc #: 14     Filed: 09/27/23     Page: 4 of 5 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
5 
 
6. Keim must immediately advise the Clerk’s Office of any change in his 
current mailing address.  Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this 
case; and 
7. If Keim wishes to seek relief from the Court, he must do so by filing a formal 
motion sent to the Clerk’s Office.  Every motion Keim files must include a 
written certification that he has mailed a copy of it to the Defendants or their 
counsel and state the date of mailing.  The Court will disregard letters 
sent to the judge’s chambers or  motions lacking a certificate of 
service.  
This 27th day of September, 2023. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 0:23-cv-00014-DLB-EBA     Doc #: 14     Filed: 09/27/23     Page: 5 of 5 - Page
ID#: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight