Sperry v. McKune, 112455

Background

Jeffrey Sperry, an inmate at Lansing Correctional Facility, sued the KDOC, its Secretary, and the Warden alleging exposure to asbestos and lead paint and seeking injunctive relief and damages; his original verified petition included attached grievance documents (notably a November 2010 Article 15 grievance).
KDOC argued Sperry failed to exhaust administrative remedies under KDOC regulations (Article 16 personal-injury claim required within 10 days) and attached an affidavit from the facility Grievance/Property Claims Officer stating no Article 16 claim was filed.
The district court dismissed state personal-injury claims and official-capacity claims for failure to exhaust and rejected Sperry’s waiver/estoppel arguments without requiring formal summary-judgment procedures; remaining individual-capacity § 1983 claims were later dismissed as well.
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of state-law claims (Sperry failed to attach proof of exhaustion per K.S.A. 75-52,138) but reversed dismissal of Sperry’s § 1983 claim, finding KDOC waived the exhaustion defense by addressing Sperry’s March 2010 grievance on the merits.
The Kansas Supreme Court granted review, held that KDOC’s affidavit converted the motion-to-dismiss into a summary-judgment context, found the lower courts failed to enforce Rule 141 and summary-judgment requirements, and reversed and remanded for proper Rule 141/compliance and factual development.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether courts may consider materials outside the pleading when ruling on motion to dismiss	Sperry relied on verified petition and attached exhibits; later-filed grievance evidence should be considered or excused by waiver/equity	KDOC submitted affidavit showing no Article 16 claim and argued courts could rely on that to dismiss	KDOC’s affidavit converted the 60-212(b)(6) motion into a summary-judgment context; courts must follow Rule 141 and summary-judgment procedures before considering outside materials
Whether K.S.A. 75-52,138 requires filing proof of exhaustion and its effect on federal § 1983 claims	Sperry: equitable waiver/estoppel should excuse failure to attach proof; waiver should apply to state and federal claims	KDOC: statute requires proof on filing for state claims; federal law requires exhaustion but not proof in complaint	Held: K.S.A. 75-52,138 imposes a proof-on-filing requirement for state claims only; federal § 1983 claims are governed by federal rules (no pleading proof requirement), though exhaustion itself is required under PLRA
Whether equitable doctrines (waiver, estoppel) can excuse failure to exhaust/provide proof	Sperry argued KDOC provided wrong forms and thus waived exhaustion enforcement; equity should excuse proof requirement	KDOC argued no waiver and that procedural rules were not met; they treated exhaustion as affirmative defense	Court declined to decide broadly whether equitable exceptions apply (not presented fully) and remanded so parties may develop the record and address Ross v. Blake implications
Whether dismissal was proper without Rule 141 compliance and clear, uncontroverted facts	Sperry asserted dismissal was premature and factual disputes existed about grievances and timing	KDOC pointed to affidavit and court findings that Sperry did not file Article 16 claim	Held: Lower courts erred in failing to enforce Rule 141 and summary-judgment procedures; record lacks clarity about controverted facts (e.g., March 2010 Warden letter); remand for proper factual development and application of summary-judgment rules

Key Cases Cited

Hemphill v. Shore, 295 Kan. 1110 (Kansas Supreme Court) (motion to dismiss decided from well-pleaded facts)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. Supreme Court) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense; inmates need not plead exhaustion in complaint)
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (U.S. Supreme Court) (PLRA exhaustion is mandatory; courts may not create judge-made exceptions casually)
Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92 (Kansas Supreme Court) (courts must enforce Rule 141 when materials outside pleadings are considered; error may be harmless only in narrow circumstances)
McCullough v. Bethany Med. Ctr., 235 Kan. 732 (Kansas Supreme Court) (reversible error when Rule 141 not enforced because facts and evidence are indeterminate)
Born v. Born, 304 Kan. 542 (Kansas Supreme Court) (summary-judgment standard requires no genuine issue of material fact)
Water Dist. No. 1 of Johnson County v. Prairie Center Dev., 304 Kan. 603 (Kansas Supreme Court) (invited error: a party cannot invite consideration of outside materials then complain)
Bruner v. State, 277 Kan. 603 (Kansas Supreme Court) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed but must comply with procedural rules)
Chelf v. State, 46 Kan. App. 2d 522 (Kansas Court of Appeals) (discusses K.S.A. 75-52,138 as mandatory but nonjurisdictional and potential equitable defenses)