Johnson v. Ruiz
123646
| Kan. Ct. App. | Oct 8, 2021Background:
- Inmate Rheuben Johnson filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus claiming prison staff failed to return the entire Form 9 (a three-part, perforated inmate request form) on multiple occasions.
- Johnson cited K.A.R. 44-15-101(f) and K.A.R. 44-15-102(b)(3)(C), arguing those regulations require staff to sign, date, and return inmate request/grievance forms and copies to inmates.
- He alleged staff threats deterred him from pursuing administrative grievances, so mandamus was his only adequate remedy.
- Hutchinson Correctional Facility’s General Order and the Form 9 design show the middle portion is retained by staff and the bottom portion (labeled “to be returned to inmate”) is returned; the General Order did not require returning the entire form.
- The district court dismissed the petition, finding Johnson failed to identify any clear ministerial duty to return the whole Form 9 and showed no real prejudice; it noted the inmate could copy the form.
- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Johnson did not establish that the cited regulations apply to Form 9s or that a ministerial duty to return the entire document exists.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prison officials have a non‑discretionary duty under K.A.R. 44‑15‑101(f) / 44‑15‑102(b)(3)(C) to return the entire Form 9 | K.A.R. provisions require staff to sign, date, and return inmate request/grievance forms; Form 9 is such a form and must be returned whole | No clear ministerial duty; Form 9 is distinct from grievance forms covered by the regs; policy does not mandate return of the entire form; inmate may copy it | Court: Johnson failed to show the regs govern Form 9 or impose a duty to return the whole document; mandamus improper; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Slusher v. City of Leavenworth, 285 Kan. 438 (2007) (appellate court has unlimited review over mandamus dismissals)
- Bodine v. Osage County Rural Water Dist. No. 7, 263 Kan. 418 (1997) (mandamus compels performance of clearly defined ministerial duties, not discretionary acts)
- Mobil Oil Corporation v. McHenry, 200 Kan. 211 (1968) (describing mandamus as remedy to compel non‑discretionary official duties)
- State v. Arnett, 307 Kan. 648 (2018) (issues not briefed on appeal are deemed waived)