Nemechek v. McKune

1 Citing case

  1. Johnston v. Simmons

    45 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Kan. 1999)   Cited 3 times
    Finding no ex post facto violation where a prison system refuses to decrease a sentence if a prisoner refuses enrollment in a rehab program because there is no increase in the inmate's punishment

    Defendants' only redress for inmate nonparticipation is a reduction in incentive level. Courts have found that the portions of IMPP 11-101 which allow the reduction in incentive level are not ex post facto violations because they do not increase an inmate's punishment. See Maberry v. McKune, 24 F. Supp.2d 1222, 1228 (D.Kan. 1998); Vinson v. McKune, 265 Kan. 422, 426, 960 P.2d 222, 224-25 (1998); Nemechek v. McKune, 24 Kan. App. 2d 72, 75, 941 P.2d 952, 954 (1997). Plaintiff apparently argues that even if K.S.A. § 22-3717, K.S.A. § 75-5210a and IMPP 11-101 do not run afoul of the ex post facto clause, defendants do so through their actions. Plaintiff alleges that defendants are attempting to coerce plaintiff to sign a program plan by using IMPP 11-101 against him.