Caleb Kanatzar, Appellant, v. Tommy Williams, Warden, Appellee. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Caleb Kanatzar, an inmate in the El Dorado prison, filed a habeas corpus petition in Butler County District Court challenging a Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) policy limiting prisoners in restrictive housing to six books or periodicals without the ability to swap them for new materials. After Kanatzar filed his petition in 2023 and before the district court ruled on the merits of his claim, the KDOC informed the district court it had modified the policy to allow prisoners in restrictive housing to replace the books and periodicals with different ones. The district court concluded the change in policy rendered Kanatzar's claim moot and dismissed his petition for that reason. Kanatzar has appealed. We find no legal error in the district court's decision and affirm the dismissal.

For purposes of this appeal, the relevant circumstances appear to be undisputed. At the time he filed his petition under K.S.A. 60-1501, Kanatzar was being held in restrictive housing—a blanket term the KDOC uses for what had been called administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation entailing the separation of some inmates from the general prison population either for managerial reasons, such as safety and control, or as a disciplinary sanction for violating prison rules. In some circumstances, an inmate may be held in restrictive housing for an extended or indeterminate period.

Kanatzar challenged a policy that limited an inmate in restrictive housing to having six books or periodicals in their cell without the right to trade them for different titles. The “no change” rule applied regardless of how long the inmate remained in restrictive housing. Kanatzar asserted the rule unlawfully abridged his fundamental rights. The district court issued a writ and directed the KDOC to respond on behalf of Tommy Williams, the warden of the prison and the named defendant. See K.S.A. 60-1503(a) (issuance of writ and direction to file answer to petition). The KDOC did so.

Before the district court rendered a final decision, the KDOC submitted that it had modified the policy so an inmate could swap out books and periodicals for new titles but still could not have more than six at a time. Kanatzar acknowledged the change in policy and did not dispute that afforded him the relief he was seeking. But he asked the district court to issue an injunctive order precluding the KDOC from reverting to the unmodified policy or adopting a new policy with comparable restrictions. The district court declined to do so and dismissed the petition as moot. Kanatzar has appealed.

A legal controversy becomes moot when judicial resolution of the controlling issue would no longer affect the legal rights or alter the legal relationship of the parties. State v. Montgomery, 295 Kan. 837, 840-41, 286 P.3d 866 (2012); Litke v. Board of Morris County Comm'rs, No. 124,528, 2023 WL 1879318, at *1 (Kan. App. 2023) (unpublished opinion). Here, that would seem to be true. Kanatzar offers a brief argument that the KDOC has restored its “no change” policy. But the appellate record does not support that assertion. Kanatzar refers to the KDOC policy, Internal Management Policy and Procedure (IMPP) 12-127D, as indicating the restoration. On its face, the policy does not advance Kanatzar's contention.

Under current law, mootness is a prudential doctrine rather than a jurisdictional bar and is, therefore, subject to some limited exceptions. See State v. Roat, 311 Kan. 581, 590, 466 P.3d 439 (2020). On appeal, Kanatzar alludes to one such exception commonly known as the voluntary cessation doctrine. See Stano v. Pryor, 52 Kan. App. 2d 679, 683, 372 P.3d 427 (2016) (outlining voluntary cessation doctrine). The doctrine, often applied to governmental entities, permits a court to retain a case challenging a policy or rule even after the defendant has modified the policy or rule when there is some indication they would rescind the modification if the action were dismissed as moot. For example, there may have been a past instance of such subterfuge or a decision-maker may have made comments to that effect.

Here, the KDOC modified the policy before the district court ruled, so it was not attempting to avoid an appeal of a negative decision that could have resulted in an adverse precedent. By the same token, Kanatzar has not shown he is presently under some detriment like the one he challenged in his 60-1501 petition. And he would be free to file a new petition if the KDOC were to restore the “no change” policy or to impose some comparable restriction on inmates in restrictive housing.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: