Schuyler v. Roberts, 95,482.
Decision Date | 04 August 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 95,482.,95,482. |
Citation | 139 P.3d 781 |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Parties | Leo F. SCHUYLER, Appellant, v. Raymond "Ray" N. ROBERTS, Jr., Appellee. |
Leo F. Schuyler, appellant pro se.
Julie St. Peter, of Kansas Department of Corrections, of El Dorado, for appellee.
Before HILL, P.J., GREENE, J., and BRAZIL, S.J.
Leo F. Schuyler, an inmate at the El Dorado Correctional Facility (EDCF), sought habeas corpus relief from the district court when prison officials classified him as a sex offender. Schuyler was so classified because he was once charged with aggravated sexual battery, a charge that was later dismissed by the State. The district court summarily denied Schuyler's petition ruling that this was a matter of internal prison management and was therefore best left to "the professional staff."
Further inquiry is needed here. Employing a "stigma plus" standard, as adopted by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, we first conclude that the sex offender classification makes a statement about Schuyler that is sufficiently derogatory to injure his reputation; that the statement is capable of being proved false; and that Schuyler asserts it is false. That satisfies the "stigma" portion of the analysis. But for the "plus" step of the Tenth Circuit standard, we think the court should have inquired whether the increased responsibilities and restrictions imposed upon him by this classification created a burden on Schuyler that significantly altered his status, especially when compared with an inmate not classified as a sex offender. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In 1991, Schuyler was charged with one count of aggravated sexual battery and one count of aggravated assault. The aggravated sexual battery charge claimed that Schuyler applied force to another person with the intent to arouse or satisfy his or another's sexual desires. Schuyler waived his preliminary hearing and was arraigned. Schuyler pled guilty to the aggravated assault charge, and the State dismissed the aggravated sexual battery charge. Schuyler received a prison sanction.
On September 23, 2003, Warden Raymond "Ray" Roberts, Jr., submitted an override request for Schuyler to be managed as a sex offender. The reason for this request was stated as follows: This override request was granted by a review panel on October 28, 2003.
Schuyler filed a grievance and then followed all the administrative procedures necessary to perfect this appeal. Schuyler's claim was denied at every level of the process.
Schuyler filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under K.S.A. 60-1501 in April 2005. His habeas corpus petition was summarily reviewed by the district court, which stated:
The court dismissed his petition without a hearing.
Our standard of review is reiterated in Foy v. Taylor, 26 Kan.App.2d 222, 223, 985 P.2d 1172, rev. denied 268 Kan. 886 (1999), where the court stated:
Schuyler alleges a denial of due process. Hogue v. Bruce, 279 Kan. 848, 850, 113 P.3d 234 (2005).
We understand as well that " Bankes v. Simmons, 265 Kan. 341, 349, 963 P.2d 412, cert. denied 525 U.S. 1060, 119 S.Ct. 629, 142 L.Ed.2d 567 (1998).
A series of Tenth Circuit cases are instructive here. In Levoy v. Mills, 788 F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir.1986), the court stated: But in discussing a claim that a prisoner's due process rights were violated when the prisoner was labeled as a sex offender, the court in Chambers v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 205 F.3d 1237, 1242 (10th Cir.2000), stated:
This concept of liberty interests being created by the State has been refined in a later case. In Gwinn v. Awmiller, 354 F.3d 1211, 1216 (10th Cir.2004), the court stated:
It is this stigma plus standard that we now employ. We analyze the factors set forth under the stigma plus test separately.
First, it is clear that the State's classification of Schuyler as a sex offender is a statement that is derogatory enough to damage his reputation. "We can hardly conceive of a state's action bearing more `stigmatizing consequences' than the labeling of a prison inmate as a sex offender." Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 829 (9th Cir.1997). It may also be possible for Schuyler to prove that he is not a sex offender. Schuyler apparently was labeled as a sex offender due to the fact that he was charged with but not convicted of aggravated sexual battery. If Schuyler would be able to present evidence regarding this prior charge, it is possible that he could show that he only committed the aggravated assault for which he was convicted and that the crime was not sexually motivated. Accordingly, Schuyler's claim complies with the "stigma" factor set forth in the Gwinn stigma plus standard. See Gwinn, 354 F.3d at 1216.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schuyler v. Roberts
...of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Schuyler v. Roberts, 36 Kan.App.2d 388, 139 P.3d 781 (2006). In doing so, the Court of Appeals adopted the "stigma plus" test used by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to determin......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd.
...as gross receipts. Based on its rulings on the motions for summary adjudication and on the parties' stipulation to judgment, the trial [139 P.3d 781] court entered a judgment finding that General Motors had overpaid its California franchise taxes and awarding General Motors a refund of appr......
-
Bohanon v. Stone
... ... reasonable inferences state a claim for relief." ... Schuyler v. Roberts , 285 Kan. 677, 679, 175 P.3d 259 ... (2008). "'The court must determine whether ... ...
-
Matthews v. Rice
..."inmates can be classified as sex offenders based on their prior convictions or their custodial behavior." Schuyler v. Roberts, 36 Kan.App.2d 388, 139 P.3d 781 (Kan.App. 2006). Plaintiff claims that in this case, as in Schuyler under IMPP 11-115, in order to find he was a sex offender based......