Sperry v. McKune

384 P.3d 1003

Jeffrey Sperry, Appellant,

v.David McKune (Warden), et al., (Raymond Roberts, Kansas Department of Corrections ), Appellees.

No. 112,455

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed November 23, 2016

Jeffrey J. Sperry, appellant, was on the brief pro se.

Fred W. Phelps, Jr., legal counsel, Kansas Department of Corrections, was on the brief for appellees.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Luckert, J.:

K.S.A. 75–52,138 requires prison inmates to (1) exhaust administrative remedies before filing a civil lawsuit against the Kansas Secretary of Corrections, a prison warden, or certain other officials and (2) file proof of that exhaustion when initiating the suit. This appeal raises procedural issues regarding these requirements and the standards for deciding motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. Because we determine the district court and Court of Appeals failed to apply the correct standard, we reverse and remand.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In September 2011, Jeffrey Sperry, an inmate at the Lansing Correctional Facility (LCF), filed a lawsuit in district court seeking civil damages from the LCF Warden, the Secretary of Corrections for the State of Kansas, and the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) (collectively, the KDOC defendants). Sperry, acting on his own behalf, alleged he had been exposed to asbestos and lead paint while incarcerated at LCF. After Sperry filed his lawsuit, this case's procedural path involved a series of motions to dismiss that eventually led to this appeal. Those motions focus on the allegations in Sperry's verified petition, which he captioned a “Complaint.”

In that document, Sperry alleged that in January 2010 he first learned he had been exposed to contaminants. He sought medical treatment in March 2010, but a “facility doctor examined [Sperry] and told him that there was nothing he could do for him.” Sperry also sought “mental health counseling,” but the “psychologist simply told [Sperry] that worrying would not help his condition so he should not worry about the fact that he will become seriously ill and die prematurely due to the exposure.” To remedy these alleged wrongs, Sperry sought an injunction ordering the KDOC defendants to treat Sperry's current and future medical needs through medical personnel and facilities of Sperry's choosing; an injunction ordering the KDOC defendants to remove all dangerous environmental contaminants from LCF; a declaratory judgment that the KDOC defendants “knowingly and/or recklessly caused [Sperry] to be exposed to friable asbestos and lead paint”; and monetary damages in excess of $75,000.

As a means of obtaining this relief, Sperry alleged causes of action based on both federal and state law. He first alleged his federal cause of action, asserting he was entitled to redress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) because the KDOC defendants violated his right under the United States Constitution to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. He then alleged several torts governed by Kansas law: negligence, battery, breach of fiduciary duty, and outrageous conduct.

Sperry also addressed his efforts to obtain administrative relief prior to filing his lawsuit. According to him:

• He filed his first internal grievance with LCF in March 2010, but “[t]he facility refused to process the grievance.” He did not attach any documents related to this first grievance, but he did attach a contemporaneous claim he filed with the Joint Committee on Special Claims Against the State, pursuant to K.S.A. 46–907 et seq., which was denied in September 2010.

• He filed a second grievance with LCF in October 2010, but LCF lost the form. Sperry did not attach a copy of this second grievance, either, but he included a document from a KDOC official acknowledging this filing and stating, “I can only suspect that it was lost in the mail or misplaced.”

• He filed a replacement grievance in November 2010, which was “denied all the way through to the Secretary of [C]orrections on December 17, 2010.” Sperry attached this third grievance and related documents to his “Complaint.”

These attached documents show that Sperry filed the November grievance on KDOC forms relating to one of two KDOC administrative procedures that potentially applied to his claims. KDOC defines both procedures in its regulations. K.A.R. 44–15–101 et seq . defines one procedure (article 15 procedure) for grievances relating to, for example, prison conditions. K.A.R. 44–16–102 et seq. defines the other (article 16 procedure), which applies when an inmate claims property damage or personal injury. KDOC has adopted separate forms for each procedure.

From the documents attached to Sperry's petition, we know that Sperry used an article 15 form when filing his November 2010 grievance and that the grievance was reviewed and denied at three administrative levels—by his unit supervisor, the Warden, and the Secretary of Corrections. Ultimately, the Secretary, incorporating the previous responses, denied Sperry's claim because Sperry had not been exposed to harmful contaminants and had not filed an article 16 claim even though he claimed personal injury and sought monetary damages.

In response to Sperry's petition in district court, the KDOC defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss the lawsuit. The first motion raised various issues not presented in this appeal: whether the KDOC defendants lacked the capacity to be sued, whether they enjoyed immunity, and whether Sperry failed to adequately allege various claims. Then, in a “Supplement to Motion to Dismiss,” the KDOC defendants raised the issue now before us: whether Sperry exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit. The KDOC defendants' arguments focused on Sperry's failure to file an article 16 claim. To support this argument, the KDOC defendants attached an affidavit of the Grievance/Property Claims Officer at LCF, who stated he reviewed all available LCF records and was unable to find any personal injury claim filed by Sperry.

Sperry responded to both the motion and its supplement, raising several legal arguments regarding the KDOC defendants' capacity to be sued and the reasons they were not immune, the sufficiency of his allegations, and the inapplicability of article 16. He pursued some of those arguments before the Court of Appeals but did not advance them in his petition for review filed with this court. But Sperry also replied to the motions by raising an issue preserved for our review: He argued the KDOC defendants waived any requirement that he exhaust an article 16 procedure by taking certain actions during the grievance process. When Sperry first raised his waiver argument, he asserted the KDOC employees provided him with the wrong claim form. He also pointed to KDOC's Internal Management Policy and Procedure (IMPP) 01–118, which stated that “[s]taff assistance and all necessary forms shall be provided to inmates interested in filing a claim.” In other words, Sperry acknowledged he never pursued an article 16 claim, but he argued this failure was excused because KDOC wrongfully provided him article 15 forms.

In ruling on this first motion to dismiss and its supplement, the district court granted some aspects of the KDOC defendants' various arguments about capacity; this resulted in dismissal of KDOC itself as a party. In addition, the district court dismissed Sperry's personal injury claim and request for damages against the Warden and Secretary in their official capacities because Sperry had failed to exhaust administrative remedies when he did not file a timely article 16 claim. The court noted that Sperry “does not deny that he did not submit a personal injury claim within 10 calendar days of the claim[ed] personal injury.” Then, addressing Sperry's waiver argument, the district court simply concluded: “The [d]efendants didn't relinquish a known right by allegedly failing to provide forms to the Plaintiff.” The court observed that the argument seemed to be more one of estoppel than waiver. Without asking the litigants for arguments or to present a statement of facts relating to the elements of estoppel, the district court determined Sperry could not establish estoppel because he had not detrimentally relied on the KDOC defendants. This determination appears to have been based on arguments Sperry presented in an effort to establish that the article 16 procedure did not apply to his claim.

After the district court's ruling, Sperry's claims against the Warden and Secretary in their individual capacities—as opposed to official capacities—remained.

Sometime after the district court's ruling, Sperry filed an “Amended Complaint” without any attached documents. In many respects the “Amended Complaint” mirrored the original “Complaint.” For example, Sperry again alleged that the KDOC defendants had “refused to process” his March 2010 grievance, lost his October 2010 grievance, and denied his November 2010 replacement grievance “all the way through[ ] to the Secretary of Corrections.” But the amended pleading also differed from the original in several ways. Of note, Sperry did not specifically allege violations of state law; his jurisdictional statement was limited to “civil rights claims,” and he listed only a single cause of action: “Eighth Amendment—Cruel and Unusual Punishment.” Nevertheless, for reasons not made clear in the record before us, the parties and the district court continued to discuss the state law tort claims found in Sperry's original “Complaint.” We can only assume the reasons are explained in a hearing not transcribed for appeal since the State does not assert error on this point. So we, too, will consider those claims.

Almost 2 years later, the district court dismissed all remaining claims when ruling on multiple motions to dismiss filed by the Warden and Secretary. In those motions the Warden and Secretary had argued, among other things, that all of Sperry's claims arose from actions subject to the prison's...