Bankes v. Prisoner Review Bd., 123424

Background

Michael Bankes was serving a controlling sentence and was paroled in 2016 with a special condition to participate in counseling/"Batterer's Intervention."
In 2019 his parole officer alleged three violations (assaultive behavior, a DWHV conviction, and failure to participate in the counseling program); the KPRB revoked parole and set a re-parole date.
Bankes filed a pro se K.S.A. 60-1501 petition while incarcerated, challenging (1) sufficiency of evidence for the parole violations, (2) due process under the Care and Treatment Act regarding a finding of mental illness and compelled treatment, and (3) Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual-punishment implications of the counseling condition; he sought reinstatement, reimbursement for property lost at arrest, and declaratory relief.
The KPRB moved to dismiss the petition as moot after Bankes was reparoled in August 2020; the district court granted dismissal relying on Wheeler (a prior Ct. App. decision).
The Court of Appeals held the district court erred by applying a bright-line mootness rule; it instructed the court to apply State v. Roat's particularized mootness analysis, to determine whether the counseling condition was reimposed, and whether any exceptions to mootness or live remedies (e.g., reimbursement) remain.
The court declined to affirm on the KPRB's new exhaustion-of-remedies argument because the KPRB failed to identify the applicable administrative procedure in the record or district court below; the KPRB may raise exhaustion on remand.

Issues

Issue	Bankes' Argument	KPRB's Argument	Held
Whether Bankes' reparole rendered his K.S.A. 60-1501 petition moot	Reparole did not moot the petition because the challenged parole condition remains live and other remedies (e.g., reimbursement) survive	Reparole mooted the petition; relief (release) is no longer available, so appeal is moot	Reversed: court must apply Roat's particularized mootness test rather than a bright-line rule; remand for factual inquiry (including whether condition was reimposed)
Whether Wheeler controls the mootness analysis	Wheeler is distinguishable; Roat supersedes Wheeler's bright-line approach	Wheeler supports dismissal when custody change removes available relief	Court: Roat changed the mootness framework; Wheeler not controlling here
Whether the counseling condition is a freestanding constitutional claim (affecting mootness)	The condition is a substantive constitutional challenge (Eighth Amendment and liberty interest) and not merely collateral to the revocation	The claim is essentially an attack on the revocation, not a separate live controversy	Court: Bankes sufficiently framed a substantive challenge to the condition that could preserve a live controversy; factual record on reimposition is needed
Whether KPRB may alternatively prevail because Bankes failed to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies	Bankes alleged exhaustion adequately for purposes of proceeding	KPRB argues dismissal is proper because Bankes did not attach proof of exhaustion	Court: KPRB raised this for the first time on appeal and failed to identify the relevant administrative procedure; issue inadequately briefed — declined to affirm on that ground (KPRB may raise it on remand)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Roat, 311 Kan. 581, 466 P.3d 439 (Kan. 2020) (mootness is prudential; courts must perform a particularized analysis rather than apply bright-line rules)
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1998) (release from custody can render habeas claims moot absent continuing collateral consequences)
Security Bank of Kansas City v. Tripwire Operations Group, 55 Kan. App. 2d 295, 412 P.3d 1030 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018) (appellate review standard and mootness principles)
State v. Yazell, 311 Kan. 625, 465 P.3d 1147 (Kan. 2020) (appellate courts generally do not make factual findings)