Stano v. Pryor, 372 P.3d 427

Stano, an inmate at Lansing Correctional Facility (LCF), was found guilty in a prison disciplinary hearing for intoxication and fined $10; a 60-day privilege restriction was suspended. Warden and Secretary of Corrections affirmed.
Stano filed a habeas corpus petition under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-1501, alleging untimely hearing, withheld evidence/witnesses, and insufficient evidence.
The district court ordered an evidentiary hearing and directed LCF to produce Stano. LCF rescinded and refunded the $10 fine before the hearing but did not vacate or expunge the disciplinary conviction.
LCF moved to dismiss as moot, arguing no property or liberty interest remained once the fine was rescinded; the district court granted dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Stano appealed, arguing LCF could not moot the case post hoc to avoid judicial review of a procedural due process violation.
The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the due process violation occurred when the fine was imposed and voluntary rescission after litigation began did not moot the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a rescinded disciplinary fine moots a habeas/due process claim	Stano: deprivation occurred when the fine was imposed; rescission after suit began cannot deprive him of his day in court	LCF: rescission removed any property interest, so petition is moot and must be dismissed	Rescission after litigation commenced does not automatically moot the claim; dismissal reversed
Whether a $10 fine constitutes a protected property interest triggering due process	Stano: inmates have protected interest in money; even small fines implicate due process	LCF: (implicitly) minimal fine removed risk once refunded	Court: a monetary fine constitutes a property interest sufficient to invoke due process
Whether summary dismissal was appropriate on face of petition	Stano: well-pleaded facts show deprivation without process, so dismissal improper	LCF: no live interest after rescission so no claim remains	Court reviews de novo and held dismissal was improper because alleged deprivation occurred when fine was imposed
Whether voluntary cessation doctrine allows mootness here	Stano: rescission appears timed to evade review; voluntary cessation exception applies	LCF: rescission eradicated the injury making the case moot	Court: voluntary cessation doctrine prevents mooting unless defendant shows no reasonable expectation of recurrence; LCF failed to meet heavy burden

Burns v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Correction, 544 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2008) (due-process violation is complete when deprivation occurs; late voluntary remedial action generally does not moot claim)
County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979) (voluntary cessation generally does not moot a case absent assurance of no recurrence)
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2010) (voluntary cessation mootness test: no reasonable expectation of recurrence and complete eradication of effects)
Ind v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 801 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2015) (voluntary-cessation exception applies where defendant might resume challenged conduct; burden on defendant to show otherwise)
Whitmore v. Hill, 456 Fed. Appx. 726 (10th Cir. 2012) (reliance on Burns to reject mootness where fines were rescinded during review)
Hogue v. Bruce, 279 Kan. 848 (2005) (inmate must show deprivation of recognized liberty or property interest for procedural-due-process claim)
Anderson v. McKune, 23 Kan. App. 2d 803 (1997) (monetary fine is a property interest implicating due process)
Smith v. McKune, 31 Kan. App. 2d 984 (2003) (recognizes inmates' protected interest in money and applicability of due process)
Johnson v. State, 289 Kan. 642 (2009) (standards for summary dismissal under K.S.A. 60-1501)