Matson v. State
| Decision Date | 23 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 123,600,123,600 |
| Citation | 500 P.3d 1228 (Table) |
| Parties | Mike C. MATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Daniel Schnurr, and Carolyn Graves, Appellees. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Mike C. Matson, appellant pro se.
Donald E. Anderson II, of Law Office of Donald E. Anderson II, LLC, of Great Bend, for appellant.
Fred W. Phelps Jr., deputy chief legal counsel, of Kansas Department of Corrections, for appellees.
Before Warner, P.J., Malone and Buser, JJ.
After a remand from this court, Mike C. Matson continued to pursue his retaliatory prison transfer claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1996). The Respondents moved for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Matson failed to prove that he exhausted his administrative remedies before filing his claim. The district court found that Matson did not exhaust his administrative remedies and granted the Respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings. On appeal, Matson correctly argues that federal law does not require him to prove that he exhausted administrative remedies in the pleadings. Instead, the burden is on Respondents to show that administrative remedies were available, and that Matson failed to use them. Thus, we once again remand this case for further proceedings on Matson's retaliatory prison transfer claim.
Matson filed a civil suit against the warden of the Ellsworth Correctional Facility (ECF) in 2013. In 2014 Matson, while an inmate at ECF, was charged by prison officials with committing lewd acts. Matson was found guilty of the disciplinary violation. While exhausting his administrative remedies in the 2014 disciplinary case, Matson engaged in settlement negotiations with prison officials about the 2013 civil suit. During settlement negotiations, Matson was transferred from ECF to the Hutchinson Correctional Facility (HCF), a maximum-security prison.
In September 2014, Matson filed a pleading which he entitled "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1501 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983." The pleading named the State of Kansas and Daniel Schnurr, ECF warden, as Respondents. The K.S.A. 60-1501 claim alleged that the 2014 disciplinary case violated Matson's procedural due process rights, led to an arbitrary conviction, and was based on insufficient evidence. The claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleged that Matson was denied access to the courts and experienced retaliatory actions by the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) officials because of filing his 2013 civil suit.
The district court summarily dismissed Matson's petition and complaint for failure to state facts entitling him to relief. Matson appealed and this court reversed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim as it related to his transfer to HCF in alleged retaliation for his refusal to dismiss his 2013 civil suit. Matson v. State , No. 114,001, 2016 WL 4584824, at *5 (Kan. App. 2016) (unpublished opinion). This court remanded the case "with instructions to reinstate and construe that portion of Matson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as a prison transfer retaliation claim." 2016 WL 4584824, at *5.
On remand, the Respondents filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion to dismiss argued that Matson's claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The motion for judgment on the pleadings argued that Matson failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to his prison transfer.
Matson filed an amended petition for money damages and declaratory judgment. The amended petition named Carolyn Graves, classification administrator at ECF, as another Respondent. Matson also responded to the Respondents' motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleading.
On May 7, 2019, the district court issued a memorandum decision. The district court denied the Respondents' motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. As for the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the district court reasoned that Matson needed to exhaust a three-step administrative process for his prison transfer retaliation claim and that he did not do so. As the district court saw it, Matson tried to prove that he exhausted his administrative remedies in his amended petition, but it appeared "that step one and step two of the three step administrative remedy process both occurred prior to his complained of transfer." The district court reasoned that "it is impossible for [Matson] to plead and provide proof of exhaustion of all three steps as required." Thus, the district court granted the Respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Mason filed several postjudgment motions including a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The district court denied all of Matson's postjudgment motions on September 12, 2019. Matson timely appealed the district court's order. The Respondents did not cross-appeal the district court's adverse ruling on the statute of limitations.
On appeal, Matson argues the district court erred by granting the Respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings after finding that he failed to plead and provide proof of exhaustion of his administrative remedies. The Respondents assert the district court properly found that Matson did not exhaust available administrative remedies.
" " Tillman v. Goodpasture , 313 Kan. 278, 281, 485 P.3d 656 (2021) ).
Matson's original petition, filed in September 2014, alleged that he was transferred to a higher security prison as a result of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial