A prison warden faces trial for ignoring an inmate's warning before a violent assault.

Record source: CourtListener

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT ASHLAND CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-108-DLB-HAI MICHAEL D. PADGETT PLAINTIFF v. ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. DEFENDANTS * * * * * * * * * * I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on the June 22, 2026 Recommended Disposition of United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram, wherein he recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff Michael Padgett’s pro se Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 85) and Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. # 85-1), grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 84) as to Defendants Christian Smith and Phillip Smith, and deny Defendants’ Motion as to Defendant Shawn McKenzie. (Doc. # 98 at 1). Defendant McKenzie has filed written Objections to the Recommended Disposition (Doc. # 99) and Padgett has filed a Response to those Objections (Doc. # 100). Accordingly, the Recommended Disposition is ripe for the Court’s review. For the following reasons, McKenzie’s Objections are overruled, the Recommended Disposition is adopted, Padgett’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 85) is denied, Padgett’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. # 85-1) is denied, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 84) is granted in part and denied in part. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Court incorporates the factual background as set forth in the Recommended Disposition. (Doc. # 98 at 1–2). Nonetheless, the Court will provide a brief summary as necessary to evaluate McKenzie’s Objections. Plaintiff Michael Padgett was confined in the restricted housing united at Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (“EKCC”) in September 2024. (Id. at 1 (citing Doc. # 20 at 1–2)). Padgett asked Defendant Phillip Smith, the Unit Administrator at EKCC, to be placed in protective custody because he had been threatened by other inmates who are gang members, but Smith denied his request. (Id.). After Padgett appealed Smith’s initial denial, the EKCC classification committee, Defendant Deputy Warden Christian Smith, and the Kentucky Department of Corrections (“KDOC”) denied Padgett’s request. (Id.). Following the denial, in October of 2024, Padgett wrote a letter to EKCC Warden Shawn McKenzie informing the Warden of the serious risk he would face if he were returned to general population. (Id.). McKenzie did not reply to Padgett’s letter, and Padgett was returned to general population on October 25, 2024. (Id.). Padgett was initially assigned to Dorm 2, but he claims he was later transferred to “the most violent dorm at EKCC” by Defendant John Doe, the Dorm 3 Unit Administrator. (Id. at 2 (citing Doc. # 20 at 1–2)). Padgett claims he was transferred based on another inmate’s request. (Id.). On October 29, 2024, the day after transferring into his new dorm, Padgett was violently assaulted by three inmates, including the one who requested his transfer. (Id.). He was transported to a local hospital for evaluation and, upon his return to EKCC, placed in the restricted housing unit pending his transfer to another institution. (Id.). On November 1, 2024, Padgett was transferred to Little Sandy Correctional Complex (“LSCC”). (Id.). Padgett alleged that gang members at LSCC were aware of the previous assault at EKCC. (Id.). Padgett filed his pro se Complaint in this Court on November 26, 2024. (Doc. # 1). On its initial review, this Court dismissed Padgett’s claims against several Defendants he named, allowing only his § 1983 Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants McKenzie, Christian Smith, Phillip Smith and John Doe to continue. (Doc. # 98 at 2 (citing Doc. # 20 at 4)). Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 84) on December 12, 2025. Padgett filed a Response to Defendants’ Motion on January 22, 2026 (Doc. # 92), and Defendants did not file a Reply. Padgett filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 85) on December 16, 2025. Defendants filed a Response on January 12, 2026 (Doc. # 91) and Padgett filed a Reply on January 22, 2026 (Doc. # 93). Judge Ingram issued his Recommended Disposition on June 22, 2026, recommending that the Court deny Padgett’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Amend Complaint. (Doc. # 98). Judge Ingram also recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendants Smith and Smith and deny the Motion as to Defendant McKenzie. (Id.). On July 6, 2026, Defendant McKenzie filed Objections to the Recommended Disposition (Doc. # 99), and on July 17, 2026, Padgett filed his Response to McKenzie’s Objections (Doc. # 100). Accordingly, the matter is ripe for the Court’s review. III. RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION Judge Ingram began his Recommended Disposition by addressing several evidentiary disputes the parties raised. First, Judge Ingram analyzed Defendants’ argument that Padgett produced a false, inauthentic letter to aid his summary judgment motion. (Doc. # 98 at 3). Judge Ingram concluded that “[u]ltimately, the authenticity of the letter is inconsequential at this point because it does not have an impact on [Judge Ingram’s] analysis of these two motions for summary judgment.” (Id.). Notwithstanding, Judge Ingram found that the letter did not call Padgett’s credibility into question and was not an indication of his overall dishonesty. (Id. at 4–5). Next, Judge Ingram moved to Padgett’s filing of a medical report from the Kentucky State Penitentiary that was filed long after the deadline for dispositive motions. (Id. at 5–6). Because the contents of the report were not relevant to the issues of summary judgment motions, Judge Ingram did not make any formal rulings on the late report. (Id. at 6–7). Judge Ingram then addressed the merits of the two motions for summary judgment. He first addressed Defendants’ exhaustion argument, where Defendants argued they are entitled to summary judgment because Padgett failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Id. at 8). After setting forth the federal standard for prison remedy exhaustion, Judge Ingram analyzed what steps Padgett took toward exhausting his available remedies. (Id. at 9). He found that, once an inmate makes a protective custody request, institution staff must first conduct an investigation into the matter. (Id.). After the investigation, Judge Ingram opined that the inmate must sit before the Classification Committee, which then determines whether the inmate’s request will be granted. (Id.). Judge Ingram then found that an inmate may appeal the Committee’s adverse decision to the Warden of their facility within five days. (Id.). Then, Judge Ingram found, if an inmate is not satisfied with the Warden’s response, the inmate may appeal the decision to the Director of Population Management within five days of receipt of the Warden’s response. (Id.). Judge Ingram concluded t

Official opinion source