Bohanon v. Stone

• Decision Date: 08 April 2022
• Docket Number: 167,124
• Parties: Cledith Bohanon, Appellant, v. Amanda Stone, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

Cledith Bohanon, Appellant, v. Amanda Stone, et al., Appellees.

No. 124, 167

Court of Appeals of Kansas

April 8, 2022

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Appeal from Reno District Court; Joseph L. McCarville III, judge.

Shannon S. Crane, of Hutchinson, for appellant.

Jon D Graves, legal counsel, of Kansas Department of Corrections of Hutchinson, for appellees.

Before Gardner, P.J., Hill and Isherwood, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Per Curiam.

Cledith Bohanon filed a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition in the Reno County District Court alleging that, in violation of a Kansas regulation, the prison staff at Hutchinson Correctional Facility (HCF) opened his legal mail outside his presence. He asserted this conduct occurred on more than one occasion, and the actions implicated his rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as his right to privacy. The district court summarily denied Bohanon's petition in a single paragraph. Bohanon now brings the matter before us to determine whether summary denial was appropriate. Following a comprehensive review of the case along with the governing legal authority, we find that Bohanon's petition alleged sufficient facts to avoid summary dismissal. The decision of the district court is reversed and remanded with directions.

Factual and Procedural Background

On November 5, 2020, Bohanon, an inmate at HCF, wrote to the mailroom to complain that many times he received legal mail that was already opened when it arrived. He requested $1, 250 in compensatory and punitive damages. Four days later, Bohanon received a response that advised: "If legal mail is opened in mailroom, it is done in error and 'opened in error' will be written on the envelope [and] placed in unit team box."

The next day Bohanon filed a similar complaint and the mailroom conceded that "there was an opened letter addressed KDOC legal counsel that was opened when unit team received it from the mailroom." The reply also included an apology.

The next week Bohanon filed an inmate complaint related to the November 5th incident. While the complaint highlighted that occurrence in particular, it also explained that similar incidents "repeatedly" occurred. Bohanon received a response from T. Bartley, CCI, that stated:

"After investigation into your complaint, I found that your legal letter was opened in error. This action was not done in malice but was a mistake on the part of the mailroom. There are over 1, 600 offenders housed at the Hutchinson Correctional Facility, it is reasonable to assume that there will be an error made occasionally. The mailroom usually marks the legal letter that is opened by mistake 'opened in error', however, this did not happen in this case. I do not believe that your legal letter was opened intentionally and unit team apologies for this error. If this issue continues to happen in the future, I encourage you to report it to your assigned unit team counselor."

Unsatisfied with the response, Bohanon took his complaint up the chain to the Warden's office. The Warden reviewed the matter and ultimately agreed with the conclusion that the "legal letter was not opened in malice." He reiterated the fact that the mailroom employees bear the responsibility of processing a considerable amount of mail and the staff notified Bohanon of their misstep by writing "opened in error" on his letter.

Bohanon was no more satisfied with the Warden's response than that of the mailroom, so he appealed the decision to the Secretary of Corrections. He explained that HCF mailroom employees repeatedly opened his legal mail outside his presence, the Warden should have paid the compensatory damages he requested, and if the Warden continued to refuse to do so, the parties would be forced to return to court to settle the matter. The Secretary's designee replied:

"It appears, by and large, based on extensive written documentation available to this reviewer that staff are opening your legal mail within your presence, and under your observation, prior to delivering it. Evidence suggests that the instances where this does not occur are the exception and likely a result of harmless error. With that said, the staff at the facility have taken accountability for this error and will continue to work diligently to reduce future occurrences of legal mail being inadvertently opened."

The response offered Bohanon little solace, so he filed the K.S.A. 60-1501 petition that is the subject this appeal. He alleged that prison officials opened his legal mail multiple times in violation of K.A.R. 44-12-601(c)(2) and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Bohanon noted that he had exhausted all administrative remedies, and, for relief, he should be discharged from the unlawful portion of his imprisonment. He also explained that because one could reasonably infer that whoever opened the mail also read it, then his right to privacy was also implicated.

The district court summarily dismissed Bohanon's petition with a cursory order that stated simply:

"Plaintiff alleges that on 11-5-20 he received a letter from KDOC Legal Counsel (Legal Mail) that had been opened not in his presence with the notation that it had been opened in error. Plaintiff does not allege facts that show the incident was not an accident. KAR 44-12-601(a)(2) does not make violation of the regulation an intentional violation of constitutional rights."

Bohanon timely moved for reconsideration in which he reiterated his concern that the HCF mailroom repeatedly and intentionally opened his legal mail. He also noted that the district court's order cited the incorrect subsection of the administrative regulation. The order cited K.A.R. 44-12-601(a)(2), which defines "Censor," "Inspect," and "Read," while Bohanon's petition appropriately referenced K.A.R. 44-12-601(c)(2), which regulates legal mail. See K.A.R. 44-12-601(a)(2); K.A.R. 44-12-601(c)(2). Finally, Bohanon asserted that the district court's order failed to address his privacy argument.

Bohanon filed a timely notice of appeal but advised that his motion for reconsideration was pending.

A different district court judge held a hearing on Bohanon's motion to reconsider and Bohanon attended pro se. Bohanon primarily argued that the first judge's order cited the wrong subsection of the regulation. The court denied Bohanon's motion for reconsideration with yet another cursory order:

"Petitioner's motion to reconsider doesn't add anything additional to petitioner's original arguments. The Court does not see any reason offered to justify changing the order previously entered by the judge who earlier heard and ruled on petitioner's case. The motion to reconsider is denied."

Bohanon did not file a new notice of appeal in response to the court's denial of his motion.

We must now determine whether the district court erred when it summarily denied Bohanon's K.S.A. 60-1501 motion.

Analysis

Did the District Court Err in Summarily Dismissing Bohanon's K.S.A. 60-1501 Petition?

Bohannon argues the district court erred in summarily dismissing his K.S.A. 60-1501 petition because he alleged a constitutional violation occurred when prison officials repeatedly opened his legal mail outside his presence. He contends a hearing was necessary to thoroughly resolve the matter. We pause to clarify that the order denying Bohanon's motion for reconsideration is not properly before this court as he did not file a notice of appeal from that ruling. See Ponds v. State, 56 Kan.App.2d 743, 754, 437 P.3d 85 (2019) (holding that when a timely notice of appeal is filed while there is a timely motion for reconsideration before the district court, this court may review the district court decision summarily denying a habeas petition, but it may not review the district court's ruling on the motion for reconsideration unless the appellant filed a separate notice of appeal regarding the ruling on that motion).

Standard of Review

This court exercises unlimited review over a summary dismissal of a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition. Johnson v. State, 289 Kan. 642, 649, 215 P.3d 575 (2009). Additionally, this court reviews due process claims de novo. In re Habeas Corpus Application of Pierpoint, 271 Kan. 620, 627, 24 P.3d 128 (2001).

The Petition

K.S.A 60-1501 petitions allow inmates to "attack the conditions of [their] confinement." Shepherd v Davies, 14 Kan.App.2d 333, 335, 789 P.2d 1190 (1990). K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1503(a) provides:

"(a) Issuance. The petition shall be presented promptly to a judge in the district court in accordance with the procedure of the court for the assignment of court business. The petition shall be examined promptly by the judge to whom it is assigned. If it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits attached thereto that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief in the district court, the petition shall be dissolved at the cost of the plaintiff. If the judge finds that the plaintiff may be entitled to relief, the judge shall issue the writ and order the person to whom the writ is directed to file an answer within the period of time fixed by the court or to take such other action as the judge deems appropriate."

Summary denial of such petitions is appropriate when the allegations are not "of shocking and intolerable conduct or continuing mistreatment of a constitutional stature." Johnson, 289 Kan. at 648.

"Summary dismissal is appropriate if, on the face of the petition, it can be established that petitioner is not entitled to relief, or if, from undisputed facts, or from incontrovertible facts, such as those recited in a court record, it appears, as a matter of law, no cause for granting a writ exists." 289 Kan. at 648-49.

On appeal from the summary denial of a K.S.A....