Manis v. Goddard

<p>NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 122,538 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS BRIAN MANIS, Appellant, v. JOHNNIE GODDARD, et al., Appellees. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Butler District Court; JOHN E. SANDERS, judge. Opinion filed October 23, 2020. Reversed and remanded with directions. Brian Manis, appellant pro se. Joni Cole, legal counsel, of El Dorado Correctional Facility, for appellees. Before GREEN, P.J., STANDRIDGE, J., and MCANANY, S.J. PER CURIAM: Brian Manis appeals the district court's summary dismissal of his K.S.A. 60-1501 petition. Manis argues the district court erred in finding he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and in finding he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. For the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand Manis' case to the district court for a hearing on the merits of Manis' petition. 1 FACTS In 1998, police found a woman who had been shot to death and appeared to have been sexually assaulted. The State charged Manis with first-degree murder and rape of the woman. Manis pled guilty to second-degree murder and, in return, the State dismissed the rape charge. In 1999, Manis began serving his sentence at the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC). On admission, Manis was not managed as a sex offender. But in 2003, the director of the KDOC's Sex Offender Management Program approved a decision made by the KDOC's Sex Offender Override Panel (override committee) to manage Manis as a sex offender. In support of this decision, the override committee determined Manis' crime was sexually motivated based on the fact that, although the charge was dismissed, Manis originally was charged with rape. In 2005, Manis asked to be taken out of sex offender management; the override committee denied his request. But in 2012, the override committee granted Manis an override and released him from sex offender management. According to the KDOC's Sex Offender Specialist Kimberly Coffin, that decision was based solely on the fact that the court ordered the KDOC to adopt a new sex offender classification procedure that comported with due process requirements. So it appears the decision was not based on Manis' crime, his behavior in prison, or his need for treatment. Manis' override out of sex offender management lasted until May 2016, when Coffin notified Manis of the KDOC's intent to manage him as a sex offender per Internal Management Policy and Procedure (IMPP) 11-115A. Manis attended a due process hearing held to determine whether he should be managed as a sex offender. In support of its position that Manis should be managed as a sex offender, the KDOC introduced an affidavit from the prosecuting attorney attesting that Manis' crime was sexually 2 motivated. After the hearing, Coffin determined that Manis' crime was sexually motivated and ordered Manis to return to sex offender management. Manis appealed the decision by submitting an &quot;inmate request to staff member&quot; form (Form 9) to the prison warden, arguing the decision violated his statutory and constitutional rights. Manis received a letter ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4799762/manis-v-goddard/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on, it is strongly advised to avoid Manis v. Goddard in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Manis v. Goddard. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Manis v. Goddard is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.