Payton v. State of Kansas
709 F. App'x 514
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Payton was convicted of rape in Kansas; he later sought relief claiming pretrial DNA testing already proved his innocence but was mischaracterized at trial by a judge and prosecutor.
- Kansas law (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-2512) allows convicted rapists to seek new or different DNA testing and, if results are favorable and material, may lead to statutory remedies (e.g., vacatur, new trial) after a hearing.
- Payton filed a petition under § 21-2512; the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed and the Kansas Supreme Court denied review; federal habeas relief was denied or unavailable.
- Payton then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a Kansas judge and the chief district attorney, alleging constitutional violations in the application of § 21-2512.
- The federal district court dismissed the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding Payton’s claims rested on a legal misunderstanding of § 21-2512.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 21-2512 applies when Payton relies on prior DNA tests rather than new testing | Payton: prior DNA testing already proved innocence and § 21-2512 should apply to those results | Defendants: statute requires new or different DNA testing to trigger remedies | Court: statute requires new/different testing; does not apply to mere recharacterization of prior tests |
| Whether favorable DNA results automatically require statutory remedies under § 21-2512(f)(2) | Payton: favorable DNA results would compel one of the statutory remedies (e.g., vacatur, new trial) | Defendants: statute does not compel automatic relief; remedy is discretionary after hearing | Court: Kansas precedent rejects automatic entitlement to listed remedies; relief is not mandatory |
| Whether misapplication of § 21-2512 by state actors gave rise to a § 1983 claim | Payton: misapplication violated his constitutional rights, so § 1983 is proper | Defendants: Payton’s claim rests on a faulty legal premise about the statute, so no valid § 1983 claim | Court: dismissal affirmed because the underlying legal premise is incorrect and no constitutional violation stated |
| Whether the federal courts could treat this as a habeas claim rather than § 1983 | Payton: emphasized he sued under § 1983, not for habeas relief | Defendants: district court lacked jurisdiction to grant habeas relief at that stage | Court: district judge correctly noted habeas relief would be unavailable; Payton did not challenge that on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lackey, 286 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2012) (K.S.A. 21-2512 requires new or different DNA testing; does not cover further analysis of prior test results)
- Haddock v. State, 286 P.3d 837 (Kan. 2012) (favorable DNA results under § 21-2512 do not automatically entitle petitioner to the remedies listed in § 21-2512(f)(2))