Shayna Hubers v. Vanessa Kennedy, Warden Kciw

── Shayna Hubers v. Vanessa Kennedy, Warden Kciw ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky Date: May 15, 2026 Author: Combs Category: General RENDERED: MAY 15, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2025-CA-1116-MR SHAYNA HUBERS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE MELANIE BRUMMER, JUDGE ACTION NO. 25-CI-00101 VANESSA KENNEDY, WARDEN KCIW; COOKIE CREWS, COMMISSIONER KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JEREMY LUCAS, COR CAPT I; JOSEPH WELLS, ADJUSTMENT OFFICER; MARC BLANFORD, COR CAPT I; AND SARA KING, INVESTIGATING OFFICER APPELLEES OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND COMBS, JUDGES. COMBS, JUDGE: Shayna Hubers, an inmate in the custody of the Kentucky Department of Corrections (the DOC), appeals from an order of the Shelby Circuit Court dismissing her petition for a declaration of rights. After our review, we affirm. Hubers is housed at the Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women in Pewee Valley. She is serving a life sentence for the 2012 murder of Ryan Poston, a young attorney. On February 26, 2024, following an investigation into allegations made by a former inmate, Hubers was charged by the institution with a major violation of the DOC’s policies and procedures; i.e., engaging in extortion or blackmail. After an administrative hearing conducted in March, she was found guilty of the violation. The penalty imposed was thirty-days’ disciplinary segregation (with thirty-days’ credit for time served) and ninety-days’ loss of good-time credit. Hubers filed a timely appeal to the warden. Upon her review, the warden affirmed the decision and the segregation penalty but ordered the good- time credit restored. On February 20, 2025, Hubers filed a declaratory judgment action in Shelby Circuit Court. Hubers contended that she had been denied procedural due process throughout the disciplinary proceedings. The DOC moved to dismiss the petition arguing that the penalty of 30-days’ segregation with credit for time served was insufficient in severity and impact to warrant either state or federal due -2- process protection as a matter of law. The circuit court agreed and granted the motion. This appeal followed. In her brief on appeal, Hubers argues that the circuit court erred by dismissing her declaratory judgment action because the penalties imposed adversely impacted her parole eligibility; increased the duration of her sentence; increased her security level; and delayed her eligibility for honors housing. She contends that these consequences constitute an atypical and significant hardship sufficient to implicate her right to due process. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is governed by provisions of the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 12.02(f). A trial court will grant a motion to dismiss only where “it appears the pleading party would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts which could be proved in support of his claim.” James v. Wilson, 95 S.W.3d 875, 883 (Ky. App. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Whether a trial court erred by dismissing a civil action presents a question of law subject to our de novo review. Campbell v. Ballard, 559 S.W.3d 869, 870 (Ky. App. 2018). However, we must bear in mind that “‘[p]rison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.’” Webb v. Sharp, 223 S.W.3d 113, 117 (Ky. 2007) (quoting Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 -3- (1974)). Courts