Holt v. Heimgartner

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 119,106


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

WILLIAM R. HOLT,
Appellant,

v.

JAMES HEIMGARTNER,
Appellee.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Butler District Court; JOHN E. SANDERS, judge. Opinion filed November 9, 2018.
Affirmed.

Richard C. Paugh, of Pate & Paugh, LLC, of Wichita, for appellant.

Joni Cole, legal counsel, of El Dorado Correctional Facility, for appellee.

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., GREEN, J., and ROBERT J. FREDERICK, District Judge,
assigned.

PER CURIAM: William R. Holt, an inmate at the El Dorado Correctional Facility
(EDCF), filed a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition against James Heimgartner, the warden of
EDCF, in the Butler County District Court after exhausting his administrative remedies in
the prison grievance system. Holt appeals from the trial court's decision dismissing his
K.S.A. 60-1501 petition for failure to state a claim that would entitle him to relief. After
reviewing the petition and documents in the record, we conclude that the petition was
properly dismissed for failing to state a claim.
2


On March 20, 2017, Holt filed an inmate grievance complaint in which he stated
that EDCF employees were violating his right to equal protection and due process of the
law and were subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment. Holt alleged that the
prison staff was violating his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Specifically, he complained
that on March 17, 2017, an EDCF employee told him he "would be held on level '0' and
maintained on max security as well as all good time withheld for my refusal in June of
2016 to complete RDU mental health testing." Holt alleged that the prison staff was
illegally withholding his good time, and he claimed he had a liberty interest in being
promoted to level I and had the potential to earn good time credit. He further argued that
he should not have been precluded from receiving good time for his refusal to complete
"RDU mental health testing" in June 2016. He also maintained that the prison staff was
violating his right to access to the court without explaining how that right was being
violated. On March 22, 2017, Holt filed another inmate grievance complaint in which he
again complained about the withholding of good time credits.

A unit team member, Richard English, responded to the initial grievance on March
28, 2017. He stated that he "looked into this matter and [Holt] will be allowed to
complete the RDU process as we discussed." He stated that he would keep Holt notified
of the process. That same day, English also responded to Holt's second inmate grievance
complaint, stating that it violated the grievance procedure because Holt stated that it was
a duplicate grievance. Holt responded that he was not satisfied with the unit team
response to either grievance and wished to forward his grievances to the warden's office.
The warden's office received the response to the first grievance on March 29, 2017, and
the second grievance on April 5, 2017.

At some point, English provided an addendum response to Holt's grievance about
the RDU process and earning good time. In it, English explained that Holt refused the
3

RDU process in June 2016, which meant he was not allowed to earn good time credit.
Then Holt was also told that he would remain on level 0 and remain in maximum custody
until he completed the RDU process. English explained that the Department of
Corrections withheld 138 days of good time for this refusal. English also stated that
Holt's signing the RDU process "'under duress' negates Corizion's ability to release any
information to the Department of Corrections."

On April 10, 2017, Heimgartner reviewed Holt's complaint, as well as some
information provided by an EDCF employee. Based on his review, Heimgartner
determined that no further action was necessary for Holt's grievances. On April 13, 2017,
Holt filed an appeal to the Secretary of Corrections.

On April 17, 2017, the designee of the Secretary of Corrections filed a response on
appeal to Holt's grievances. The designee determined that the response rendered by staff
at EDCF was appropriate and no further action should be taken.

On May 9, 2017, Holt filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under K.S.A. 60-
1501, alleging that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty by Heimgartner as the
warden of EDCF. Holt raised two issues in his petition. He argued that the Secretary of
Corrections and the warden were violating his First Amendment right to privacy or his
right to equal protection and due process. He also argued that the warden was denying
him his right of access to the courts by refusing to copy or to mail meaningful legal
documents and causing legal documents to be destroyed.

On August 23, 2017, the trial court issued an amended writ of habeas corpus,
directing Heimgartner to answer. On October 23, 2017, Heimgartner filed an answer and
motion for summary dismissal of the K.S.A. 60-1501 petition. Citing In re Habeas
Corpus Application of Pierpoint, 271 Kan. 620, Syl. ¶ 8, 24 P.3d 128 (2001),
Heimgartner argued that the law was clear that a prisoner has no protected liberty interest
4

in future good time credits that have not been earned yet. Heimgartner maintained that
Holt failed to state a claim and that the trial court should summarily dismiss the petition.

On November 14, 2017, the trial court granted Heimgartner's motion to dismiss
Holt's petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court agreed with Heimgartner that
Holt's complaint was about the loss of future good time and not the forfeiting of good
time already earned. Moreover, the trial court found that custody classifications, handling
of inmate funds, housing, and security levels were matters within the control of prison
authorities and not the courts. In addition, the trial court concluded that Holt had failed to
show that his issues concerned anything atypical of the normal incidents of prison life or
internal discipline. And the trial court concluded that no violation of Holt's liberty interest
had occurred and that no evidence existed that Holt had been denied access to the courts.

Holt timely filed a notice of appeal.

Holt argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his K.S.A. 60-1501 petition for
failing to state a claim that would entitle him to relief. To state a claim for relief under
K.S.A. 60-1501, a petition must allege "shocking and intolerable conduct or continuing
mistreatment of a constitutional nature." Johnson v. State, 289 Kan. 642, 648, 215 P.3d
575 (2009). 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 the record, it seems, as a matter of law, no cause for granting a writ exists, then
summary dismissal is proper. 289 Kan. at 648-49; see K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-1503(a). We
exercise unlimited review of a summary dismissal. Johnson, 289 Kan. at 649. When
reviewing a trial court's order dismissing a petition for failure to state a claim, we must
accept the facts alleged in the petition as true. Schuyler v. Roberts, 285 Kan. 677, 679,
175 P.3d 259 (2008).

5

The trial court determined that Holt's petition alleged no actual due process
violation. To determine whether an inmate received the protections of due process, this
court applies a two-step analysis, first determining whether the State has deprived the
inmate of life, liberty, or property. If this first step is met, the second step is to determine
the extent and nature of the process to which the prisoner is entitled. Washington v.
Roberts, 37 Kan. App. 2d 237, 240, 152 P.3d 660 (2007) (citing Hogue v. Bruce, 279
Kan. 848, 850-51, 113 P.3d 234 [2005]). Whether an inmate's right to procedural due
process has been violated is subject to unlimited review. In re Habeas Corpus
Application of Pierpoint, 271 Kan. 620, Syl. ¶ 4; Swafford v. McKune, 46 Kan. App. 2d
325, 328, 263 P.3d 791 (2011).

On appeal, Holt admits that caselaw supports the trial court's ruling that he had no
liberty interest in good time credits he had not earned. See In re Habeas Corpus
Application of Pierpoint, 271 Kan. at 628. Heimgartner argues that Holt is not entitled to
relief on appeal because he admits that the lost time was future good time not yet earned
and he acknowledges that legal authority supports the trial court's ruling: that when an
offender fails to earn future good time, as opposed to forfeiting good time already earned,
no protected liberty interest arises.

Holt maintains that although he had no right to due process in forfeiting good time
not yet earned, he "had to choose between his Right to Privacy under the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the right to be treated equally as other
prisoner[s] housed with the Kansas Department of Corrections." But he does not state
how this entitles him to relief under K.S.A. 60-1501. The remainder of Holt's argument
contains factual allegations that have no citation to or support from the record on appeal.
Moreover, his argument on this issue ends in the middle of a sentence. Because none of
Holt's allegations include a denial of life, liberty, or property, the trial court properly
dismissed his petition for failure to state a claim.

6

Holt's second argument on appeal concerns his allegation that he was denied
access to the courts. Holt maintains that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition on
this claim because if the court had accepted the allegations in his petition as true, which
the trial court was required to do at the dismissal stage, his petition stated a claim that
would have entitled him to relief. Heimgartner argues that the trial court properly
dismissed Holt's claim about access to the courts because he provided no evidence that he
was denied access to the courts and the allegations in his petition were not atypical to the
normal incidents of prison life.

In his K.S.A. 60-1501 petition, Holt alleged that prison employees denied him his
right to access the courts by "refusing to mail the petitioner meaningful legal documents
by debiting the cost to his account or copy meaningful legal documents related to his
[W]yandotte [C]ounty criminal appeal or injury claims happening in [S]eptember of 2015
while at work." Holt also argued that when he arrived at EDCF, he was not allowed to
bring certain legal documents related to his Missouri case, and those documents were
"sent back," which he alleged meant they would be destroyed.

The trial court denied Holt's claims regarding access to the courts by stating that
no evidence existed to support the claim that he was denied access. Specifically, the trial
court found the fact that he filed this K.S.A. 60-1501 petition and had appealed his
conviction were "prime examples of appropriate access."

In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821, 97 S. Ct. 1491, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1977), the
United States Supreme Court established "beyond doubt that prisoners have a
constitutional right of access to the courts." The Court went on to state:

"[O]ur decisions have consistently required States to shoulder affirmative obligations to
assure all prisoners meaningful access to the courts. It is indisputable that indigent
inmates must be provided at state expense with paper and pen to draft legal documents
7

with notarial services to authenticate them, and with stamps to mail them." 430 U.S. at
824-25.

On appeal, Holt alleges that he suffered an actual injury when documents related
to his "pending Missouri case were sent back to Wyandotte County instead of being
allowed as [his] personal property." He claimed he needed those documents to help with
his defense. He also alleged that he had to sell his food to pay for the cost of postage and
for legal copies related to this case and others.

As Holt's only mention of denial of access to the courts was a conclusory
statement in his initial grievance, prison officials never addressed this complaint during
the grievance process. And although he appears to claim in his K.S.A. 60-1501 petition
that he was denied access to his personal legal documents and denied postage for mailing
legal documents, he did not make those allegations in his current grievances. The
documents about his alleged denial of postage that he attached to his K.S.A. 60-1501
petition seem to have been from a different grievance decided in 2016. Therefore, those
issues were not timely appealed by the filing of this K.S.A. 60-1501 petition. See K.S.A.
2017 Supp. 60-1501(b). Thus, we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed Holt's
petition for failure to state a claim that would have entitled him to relief.

Affirmed.