Denney v. Norwood

• Decision Date: 11 March 2022
• Docket Number: 121,888
• Citation: 315 Kan. 163,505 P.3d 730
• Parties: Dale M.L. DENNEY, Appellant, v. Joe NORWOOD, Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

315 Kan. 163

505 P.3d 730

Dale M.L. DENNEY, Appellant,

v.Joe NORWOOD, Appellee.

No. 121,888

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed March 11, 2022.

Lucas J. Nodine, of Nodine Legal, LLC, of Parsons, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

Fred W. Phelps Jr., deputy chief legal counsel, Kansas Department of Corrections, argued the cause, and Joni Cole, legal counsel, El Dorado Correctional Facility, was on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Wall, J.:

This case requires us to clarify the legal and procedural framework governing the adjudication of petitions for writ of habeas corpus under K.S.A. 60-1501 et seq., a statutory scheme that enables inmates to challenge the mode or condition of their confinement.

Dale M.L. Denney, an inmate at El Dorado Correctional Facility, petitioned for writ of habeas corpus against Joe Norwood (Secretary), who was the Secretary of Corrections at the time. In his petition, Denney challenged the Kansas Department of Corrections' (KDOC) decision to classify and manage him as a sex offender. That classification affects an inmate's visitation rights and access to work and treatment programs, among other conditions and benefits.

Denney alleged that KDOC classified him as a sex offender based on its mistaken belief that Denney falls within the definition of an offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq.

The Secretary filed an "Answer To Writ of Habeas Corpus And Motion To Dismiss," with supporting documentary evidence attached. In this consolidated filing, KDOC claimed it properly classified Denney as a sex offender under its internal policies, not KORA.

The district court granted the Secretary's motion and dissolved the writ of habeas corpus. Relying on evidence the Secretary attached to its filings, the district court found that Denney was properly classified as a sex offender under KDOC policy, rather than KORA. While at least one prison official had informed Denney that KDOC based its classification decision on KORA, the district court found the prison official's statement was simply mistaken and ultimately harmless.

A panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling. The panel construed and analyzed the Secretary's motion as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-212(b)(6). Under that standard, when matters outside the pleadings are presented in support of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief, the district court must treat the motion as one for summary judgment under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-256. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-212(d). The panel held that the documents attached to the Secretary's filings "should be deemed attachments to his answer" rather than "part of his motion to dismiss." Denney v. Norwood , No. 121,888, 2020 WL 3393773, at *3 (Kan. App. 2020) (unpublished opinion). So construed, the panel concluded that the district court did not have to convert the Secretary's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Alternatively, the panel concluded that any error was harmless. 2020 WL 3393773, at *3-4.

The panel erred by analyzing the district court's ruling under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-212. Habeas corpus proceedings are governed by Article 15 of Chapter 60 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated. Through these statutory provisions, the Legislature has created a self-contained scheme that sets forth the procedural and substantive rules governing the disposition of an inmate's request for habeas corpus relief under K.S.A. 60-1501. As a result, habeas corpus proceedings are not subject to ordinary rules of civil procedure, and neither K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-212 nor K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-256 provide an appropriate legal framework for analyzing Denney's petition or the Secretary's motion to dismiss the same.

Even so, we affirm the panel's judgment, although on different grounds, because the record establishes that no cause for granting a writ exists and summary dismissal is proper under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1505. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily dismissing Denney's petition, and we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Denney filed his K.S.A. 60-1501 petition while incarcerated at a satellite unit of El Dorado Correctional Facility in Oswego. He is serving sentences for 1993 convictions of aggravated sexual battery, aggravated criminal sodomy, and an aggravated weapons violation. He committed those offenses while on parole for 1988 convictions for aggravated burglary and rape. For his 1993 convictions, the district court sentenced Denney to life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 30 years for aggravated criminal sodomy and a consecutive controlling sentence of 6 to 20 years for the other convictions.

Denney's petition alleged that KDOC relied on KORA to classify and manage him as a sex offender within the prison. He attached several exhibits supporting that claim. An inmate-request form from March 2017 informed Denney that KDOC uses the "Offender Registration Requirements KSA - 22-4901" to manage inmates as sex offenders. A 2006 form showed that KDOC was managing Denney as a sex offender because it was "Determined By Statute." And a 2011 form stated that Denney was "Managed as a Sex Offender due to Statutory determination."

Denney argued that KDOC lacked authority to manage him under KORA because none of the definitions of "sex offender" under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-4902(b) applied to him. Denney contended that his convictions did not qualify under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-4902(b)(1), which defines a sex offender as somebody convicted of a sexually violent crime on or after April 14, 1994. Because Denney was convicted of a sexually violent crime before April 14, 1994, he argued that KDOC's decision to classify and manage him as a sex offender within the prison violated his federal constitutional right to due process. He asked the district court to enter a declaratory judgment that KORA does not apply to him and further order KDOC to stop managing him as a sex offender altogether.

The district court reviewed Denney's petition and made an initial determination that he may have a right to relief. The court therefore issued a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the Secretary to file an answer within 20 days. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1503(a) (directing judge to issue the writ and order an answer if judge finds the petitioner may have a right to relief). It also appointed counsel to represent Denney in the proceedings.

In his combined answer and motion to dismiss, the Secretary alleged that KDOC was managing Denney as a sex offender under section 11-115A of KDOC's Internal Management Policy Procedure (IMPP), not under KORA. Under that KDOC policy, inmates may be managed as sex offenders if they have "a current conviction for which s/he is incarcerated that is a sex offense." The Secretary attached the policy as an exhibit. He also attached a copy of Denney's entry on the Kansas Adult Supervised Population Electronic Repository, which showed that Denney was currently incarcerated for several sex offenses. The Secretary requested the district court dismiss Denney's petition.

Several months later, the district court held a hearing on Denney's petition. The court heard arguments from both counsel, and Denney was allowed to address the court. The court reviewed the petition, answer, and their attachments. It also reviewed a "trial brief" that Denney's court-appointed attorney had filed. No other evidence was admitted. Following the hearing, the district court dismissed Denney's K.S.A. 60-1501 petition. Denney moved for reconsideration, and the district court held another hearing on that motion. The district court denied Denney's motion for reconsideration, concluding "there is no actual difference in the management of a prisoner as a sex offender ... under KORA or under the IMPP."

Denney appealed to the Court of Appeals and raised three arguments. First, Denney argued that KDOC had, in fact, classified and managed him as a sex offender under KORA, not IMPP. Second, Denney argued that IMPP 11-115A did not apply to him because KDOC did not comply with that policy's notice requirements. And third, Denney argued that he has a liberty interest in his classification as a sex offender within KDOC and that this issue required a remand to the district court for more fact-finding.

But before reaching those issues, the Court of Appeals noted a potential error with the district court's ruling. The panel noted that the Secretary had asked the district court to dismiss Denney's petition because Denney had "failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Based on this language, the panel construed the Secretary's filing as a motion under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-212(b)(6) to dismiss Denney's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. But the panel observed that " ‘[i]f, on a motion under subsection (b)(6) or (c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under K.S.A. 60-256, and amendments thereto .’ " 2020 WL 3393773, at *2.

Because the Secretary had asked the district court to dismiss Denney's petition and had attached several exhibits to his combined answer and motion—including KDOC's IMPP 11-115A, which the district court relied on to deny Denney's claims—the panel questioned whether the district court had considered matters outside the pleadings. If so, the panel noted the district court should have treated the Secretary's motion as a motion for summary judgment, not a motion to dismiss, and analyzed the motion under the legal standard in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-256, not K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-212(b)(6).

The panel ultimately concluded that the district court had not considered matters outside the pleadings. Because the Secretary's filing was a motion to dismiss and...