Opinion
No. 111,442.
2014-09-26
Cledith BOHANON, Appellant, v. Rex PRYOR (Warden), Appellee.
Appeal from Leavenworth District Court; Dan K. Wiley, Judge.Charles J. Cavenee, of Legal Services for Prisoners, Inc., of Lansing, for appellant.Fred W. Phelps, Jr., of Kansas Department of Corrections, of Topeka, for appellee.
Appeal from Leavenworth District Court; Dan K. Wiley, Judge.
Charles J. Cavenee, of Legal Services for Prisoners, Inc., of Lansing, for appellant. Fred W. Phelps, Jr., of Kansas Department of Corrections, of Topeka, for appellee.
Before POWELL, P.J., McANANY, J., and BUKATY, S.J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Cledith Bohanon appeals the district court's denial of his K.S.A.2012 Supp. 60–1501 petition seeking relief from the decision of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) denying him minimum security classification. Specifically, Bohanon argues that the court erred in summarily dismissing his habeas petition without first having determined whether the classification committee acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Because Bohanon had no constitutionally protected liberty interest in receiving a minimum security classification, we affirm the dismissal. In doing so, we decline to review the classification committee's decision.
Bohanon was an inmate at the Lansing Correctional Facility (LCF), having been convicted of two counts of burglary, theft, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and aggravated battery against a law enforcement officer. The KDOC had placed Bohanon in the low medium security classification. In September 2013, the Prisoner Review Board (PRB) denied Bohanon parole and imposed a 2–year pass before it would reconsider him for parole. The PRB recommended Bohanon “remain free of disciplinary reports” and “reduce custody.” Due to the recommendation by the PRB, Bohanon sought a program classification review by requesting a “minimum custody by exception” classification. The classification committee disapproved of the reduction in custody by exception. Handwritten on the review form are the words “PRB minutes do not [recommend] reduced custody or indicate possible release in 2015.”
Bohanon filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under K.S.A.2012 Supp. 60–1501, arguing that the classification committee's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The district court, citing Lile v. Simmons, 23 Kan.App.2d 1, 929 P.2d 171 (1996), summarily dismissed Bohanon's habeas petition for lack of a liberty interest in his security classification. The court then denied Bohanon's motion for reconsideration. Bohanon appealed.
A K.S.A.2012 Supp. 60–1501 petition must allege “shocking and intolerable conduct or continuing mistreatment of a constitutional stature.” Johnson v. State, 289 Kan. 642, 648, 215 P.3d 575 (2009). However, “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,” then summary dismissal is proper. 289 Kan. at 648–49; see also K.S.A.2013 Supp. 60–1503(a). We exercise unlimited review of a summary dismissal. 289 Kan. at 649.
Kansas law does not create a protected liberty interest regarding an inmate's custody classification. According to the Kansas Supreme Court in Bankes v. Simmons, 265 Kan. 341, 351, 963 P.2d 412, cert. denied 525 U.S. 1060 (1998), an inmate's custody classification, housing assignment, spending limitations at a canteen, and regulation of visiting hours and other daily activities which are not atypical and do not pose a significant hardship within a prison, do not involve a liberty interest. Moreover, in addressing a similar summary dismissal of habeas petition in Lile, this court held that the appellant inmate had no liberty interest in receiving a minimum security classification and declined to review the decision by the KDOC to maintain the inmate's medium security classification. 23 Kan.App.2d at 4.
Because Bohanon's complaint based on his security classification did not raise a constitutionally protected liberty interest or a liberty interest established by Kansas law and courts should refrain from reviewing prison authorities' decisions regarding such matters, the district court was correct in summarily dismissing his habeas petition for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Lile, 23 Kan.App.2d at 3–4. Accordingly, the question whether the classification committee acted arbitrarily and capriciously is not properly before us.
Affirmed.