Opinion
111,978
04-03-2015
Archie WATKINS, Appellant, v. Dan SCHNURR, Warden, Ellsworth Correctional Facility, and Ray Roberts, Secretary of Department of Corrections for the State of Kansas, et al., Appellees.
Donald E. Anderson II, of Robert A. Anderson Law Office, of Ellinwood, for appellant. Robert E. Wasinger, of Kansas Department of Corrections, of Ellsworth, for appellee.
Donald E. Anderson II, of Robert A. Anderson Law Office, of Ellinwood, for appellant.
Robert E. Wasinger, of Kansas Department of Corrections, of Ellsworth, for appellee.
Before MALONE, C.J., McANANY and SCHROEDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Archie Watkins appeals the district court's order summarily dismissing his petition for writ filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60–1501. He argues that there was insufficient evidence from which the hearing officer could find that he engaged in unauthorized dealing and trading. Applying the “some evidence” standard, however, there is evidence that Watkins attempted to use an unmarked copy ticket that was issued to a different inmate on a different date. The evidence, although meager, supports the hearing officer's findings. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's ruling.
According to Watkins, while confined at the Hutchinson Correctional Facility (HCF), he purchased 15 copy tickets from the facility's canteen. Each copy ticket issued to an inmate is supposed to display the inmate's name and number. When Watkins was transferred to the Ellsworth Correctional Facility (ECF), he presented a copy ticket to Ellen Rose, a library assistant at the ECF, in order to make copies. But the ticket Watkins presented did not have a name or inmate number on it. Rose checked into the matter and found that the ticket had been issued to an inmate named “Bloom” at HCF. Watkins later testified that he purchased the 15 copy tickets as a package for $30 and that the last ticket did not have a number on it. He stated that he had informed the person at the HCF canteen that there was no name or number on the ticket but the canteen person told him that it would not be an issue.
Watkins was issued a citation for unauthorized dealing and trading in violation of K.A.R. 44–12–205(a). He was served a copy of his disciplinary report. Four days later, he submitted an inmate request asking for a copy of his May and June 2011 bank statements. He believed that the bank statements would corroborate his allegations. The inmate form states in two places: “This form shall be completed and submitted to the Housing Unit Staff within 48 hours of receipt of the Disciplinary Report.” Watkins' request was tardy, and his request was denied.
At a hearing on the matter the following day, a hearing officer reviewed the disciplinary report and heard Watkins' testimony. The officer found Watkins guilty. Watkins was assessed a $5 fine and placed on 10 days' restriction. His appeal to the Secretary of Corrections was denied.
Watkins then filed a petition for writ pursuant to K.S.A. 60–1501 in Ellsworth County District Court, alleging due process and equal protection violations. The district court issued a writ of habeas corpus and directed Warden Schnurr to answer within 30 days. Warden Schnurr responded with a motion to dismiss. The district court granted the Warden's motion and dismissed Watkins' petition. Watkins appeals.
Watkins contends it was error to grant the Warden's motion. We have unlimited review over the propriety of the district court's action. Johnson v. State, 289 Kan. 642, 648–49, 215 P.3d 575 (2009). In doing so, we accept the facts set forth in the petition as true. Based on those facts, Watkins must demonstrate shocking or intolerable conduct or some continuing mistreatment of a constitutional nature in order to obtain relief. See Schuyler v. Roberts, 285 Kan. 677, 679, 175 P.3d 259 (2008).
Here, the prison's assessment of a fine—even a small $5 fine—implicates the Due Process Clause. Anderson v. McKune, 23 Kan.App.2d 803, 807, 937 P.2d 16 (1997). The issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to find Watkins guilty of unauthorized dealing and trading. K.A.R. 44–12–205(a) prohibits inmates from “[t]rading, borrowing, loaning, giving, receiving, selling, and buying goods, services, or any item with economic value between or among inmates without written permission of the warden or designee.”
In our review, we examine the record for any evidence that supports the prison's decision. Sammons v. Simmons, 267 Kan. 155, 158, 976 P.2d 505 (1999). Due process does not require evidence that logically precludes any conclusion except the one reached below. 267 Kan. at 158 (citing Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 [1985] ). Instead, courts grant broad deference to prison officials in maintaining discipline among inmates. Anderson, 23 Kan.App.2d at 809.
Here, Watkins argues that Warden Schnurr failed to present some evidence to support Watkins' disciplinary convictions. The only evidence the hearing officer could rely on was that Watkins used an unmarked copy ticket that was purchased by a different inmate on a different date. It was from this piece of evidence that the hearing officer concluded that “it can be assumed that the copy ticket was given or exchanged for something else by” inmate Bloom. Watkins asserts that this statement is conclusory and without foundation. Although the evidence is limited, it logically supports the hearing officer's finding. See Sammons, 267 Kan. at 158 ; Hill, 472 U.S. at 457. And as noted earlier, the evidence need not preclude any other reasonable interpretation. There was some evidence to support Watkins' disciplinary conviction.
Affirmed.