Opinion
No. 107,184.
2012-07-27
John PICKERILL, Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Appellees.
Appeal from Butler District Court; John E. Sanders, Sr., Judge. John H. Pickerill, appellant pro se. Julie St. Peter, of Kansas Department of Corrections, El Dorado Correctional Facility, for appellees.
Appeal from Butler District Court; John E. Sanders, Sr., Judge.
John H. Pickerill, appellant pro se. Julie St. Peter, of Kansas Department of Corrections, El Dorado Correctional Facility, for appellees.
Before PIERRON, P.J., GREEN and LEBEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LEBEN, J.
Inmate John Pickerill has appealed from a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was found to have stolen cinnamon rolls from the prison kitchen. Pickerill claims that he was denied due process in the disciplinary proceeding.
But the right to due process—and court review—applies only when an inmate is deprived of some constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. Hogue v. Bruce, 279 Kan. 848, 850–51, 113 P.3d 234 (2005); Hardaway v. Larned Correctional Facility, 44 Kan.App.2d 504, 504–05, 238 P.3d 328 (2010). And the only sanctions entered against him—10 days of disciplinary segregation and a $10 fine—were never imposed.
A fine that is imposed takes away property and thus invokes constitutional protection. Sauls v. McKune, 45 Kan.App.2d 915, 920, 260 P.3d 95 (2011). But “[p]unishments never imposed do not implicate a protected ... interest.” Hardaway, 44 Kan.App.2d at 505. So Pickerill had no protected property interest. Nor was a protected liberty interest involved here: even if the disciplinary segregation had been imposed, that sanction wouldn't rise to the level of a constitutionally protected interest because a prisoner has no protected liberty interest in remaining in the general prison population rather than being separated for a time. 44 Kan.App.2d at 505 (citing Murphy v. Nelson, 260 Kan. 589, Syl. ¶ 9, 921 P.2d 1225 [1996] ).
The district court dismissed Pickerill's habeas corpus petition (which appealed the result of the prison disciplinary proceeding) because that court concluded that evidence had supported the disciplinary conviction. We have concluded that Pickerill had no right to court review at all since he had not been deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty interest. The district court's ruling—denying relief—was right, even if for the wrong reason. In such circumstances, we should affirm the district court's ruling. See State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, 59, 194 P.3d 563 (2008).
The district court's judgment is therefore affirmed.