Nobles v. Duncil

• Decision Date: 08 July 1998
• Docket Number: No. 24748.,24748.
• Citation: 202 W.Va. 523,505 S.E.2d 442
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Jack NOBLES, et al., Appellees, v. William C. DUNCIL, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, et al., Appellants.

505 S.E.2d 442

202 W.Va. 523

Jack NOBLES, et al., Appellees, v. William C. DUNCIL, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, et al., Appellants.

No. 24748.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted June 3, 1998.

Decided July 8, 1998.

Daniel F. Hedges, Mountain State Justice Inc., Charleston, for Appellees.

Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Rita A. Pauley, Special Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for Appellants. MAYNARD, Justice:

The appellants (respondents below), William C. Duncil, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, et al., appeal two provisions of the December 26, 1996 final order of the Circuit Court of Randolph County directing the appellants to correct certain conditions at the Huttonsville facility found by the circuit court to violate constitutional standards. Specifically, the appellants assert the circuit court erred in requiring the appellants to contract with a person outside the Division of Corrections to conduct inmate disciplinary hearings, in ordering that future contracts for outside inmate medical services provide for a per incident threshold not to exceed five hundred dollars, and by exceeding its authority in a mandamus action by prescribing how prison officials are to carry out their discretionary duties. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the appellants. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's order as to these two provisions and affirm the remaining provisions of the order.¹

I. FACTS

This case concerns conditions that existed at the Huttonsville Correctional Center ("Huttonsville") located in Huttonsville, West Virginia. Huttonsville is a medium security facility under the jurisdiction and control of the Secretary of the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety and the Commissioner of the Division of Corrections.² The warden is the chief executive officer charged with overall management of the facility subject to the oversight of the Secretary and the Commissioner.³

In July 1983, the appellees (petitioners below), five inmates at Huttonsville,⁴ petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus challenging certain conditions at that facility which, they alleged, violated their constitutional and statutory rights. This Court issued a rule of mandamus returnable to the Circuit Court of Randolph County and appointed the Honorable Larry V. Starcher as Special Judge.⁵

Following an evidentiary hearing conducted over a period of several days, the circuit court entered a memorandum order in which it found that several conditions at Huttonsville fell below standards guaranteed by the Constitution of West Virginia. Specifically, the circuit court found in part:

As will be stated more explicitly, the evidence in this case demonstrates clearly and convincingly that the inmates at Huttonsville exist under conditions which fall below recognized constitutional and professional standards. This is true despite the previously mentioned commendable efforts by the Warden and his staff to maintain the aging facility and administer a meaningful rehabilitation program on a woefully inadequate budget. The present state of the Center is probably the inevitable result of years of legislatively imposed austerity. Nevertheless, the following conditions exist and must be corrected:

—Overcrowding and exposure to personal assaults;

—Unsanitary and unhealthful quarters;

—Inadequate conditions of segregation;

—Inadequate health care;

—Improper disciplinary procedures;

—Inadequate communications and visitation policies and facilities;

—Limited legal access;

—Unsanitary kitchen facilities and a lack of properly trained kitchen staff;

—Improper administration of inmate accounts and "good time"; and an

—Absence of adeqaute [sic] educational or vocational rehabilitation opportunities.⁶

From 1985 to 1996, Judge Starcher maintained a hands on approach to the operation and improvement of Huttonsville. This included holding one or two enforcement hearings per year to ensure implementation of the circuit court's orders during this time. Both parties agree that this process brought very positive and tremendous change to Huttonsville. Judge Starcher's careful and judicious conduct of this litigation over many years directly resulted in dramatic and much needed reforms in the conditions at Huttonsville. In fact, Judge Starcher's management of this case caused a total metamorphosis in both conditions and attitudes at Huttonsville. This process culminated with the final order of December 26, 1996. The two provisions of that order now challenged by the appellants are as follows:

1. Medical Services. Since the inception of this Court Order there have been continued allegations raised in testimony before this Court on the issue of access to outside major medical services and the denial thereof. The current payment mechanism through contract with Correctional Medical Services ("CMS") incorporates a $5,000 threshold, that is, CMS must pay the first $5,000 of any outside medical service provided. Such $5,000 per incident payment constitutes the major non-fixed portion of the cost of the contract (salaries, supplies, administrative expenses and the like are fixed), which might be a fiscal incentive to the contractee [sic] to (1) discourage needed follow-up care from specialists, (2) refuse to use specialists who insist on quality care for their patents [sic], inmates or not, (3) delay needed rehabilitative medical care (legally required but possible to delay inmate access until discharge). This threshold appears as the Achilles heel of the HCC medical program.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the Division of Corrections shall not in future contracts for medical services at Huttonsville Correctional Center provide for a per incident threshold that exceeds $500;

2. Magistrate Hearing Process. Petitioners contend that the magistrate is not an independent decision maker at Huttonsville Correctional Center. This Court found after hearing on or about January 2, 1992, that:

A fair and impartial decision maker is at the core of an effective disciplinary process, and for it to be implemented effectively the hearing officer must be able to make decisions totally independent of the staff of the facility.

The Court finds that the use of personnel having superior officers at the facility or persons having close relationships with officers at the facility does not result in fair and impartial decision making, sufficient to provide due process of law....

The Court thereupon ORDERS petitioners' and respondents' counsel to suggest to the Court methods of selection and that will assure the requisite independence.

While the Court is quite cautions [sic] in requiring matters which result in a financial burden on the institution, this issue must either be satisfactorily resolved by the institution in the very near future or face the likelihood that the Court will appoint an independent magistrate.

The Court is still of the opinion that there are fairness and independence problems associated with the magistrate hearing process at Huttonsville Correctional Center and consistent with the need to provide a fair and economical system.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS the Division of Corrections to contract with a person to conduct the hearings who shall in no way be subject to any supervision, correction or control inside the Division of Corrections other than the Commissioner, shall not be subject to termination by the Commissioner except for gross misconduct or malfeasance in office, and which person shall not maintain an office inside a correctional facility. Said change in the magistrate system shall be made by January 1, 1998[.]

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Ordinarily, our standard of review of a circuit court's order granting relief through the writ of mandamus is de novo. See Syllabus Point 1, Staten v. Dean, 195 W.Va. 57, 464 S.E.2d 576 (1995). This standard is applicable to cases where the circuit court's decision to grant the writ was based on the following analysis:

A writ of mandamus will not issue unless three elements coexist—(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) a legal duty on the part of respondent to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy.

Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 153 W.Va. 538, 170 S.E.2d 367 (1969). Here, however, the underlying case began as an original jurisdiction action in this Court pursuant to Rule 14 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure and was referred to the circuit court. Because the circuit court conducted evidentiary hearings and made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, we find it appropriate here to follow the usual standards of review used by this Court in various kinds of cases. "That the original proceeding was based upon petitions for writs of mandamus does not require us to change our standards of review." State ex rel Cooper v. Caperton, 196 W.Va. 208, 213, 470 S.E.2d 162, 167 (1996). Accordingly,

[i]n reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court, we apply a two-prong deferential standard of review. We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the circuit court's underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.

Phillips v. Fox, 193 W.Va. 657, 661, 458 S.E.2d 327, 331 (1995) (citation omitted); see also Syllabus Point 4, Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W.Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996); and Syllabus Point 2, Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Com'n, 201 W.Va. 108, 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997). With this in mind, we now consider the issues before us.

III. DISCUSSION

A.

A Brief History

Unfortunately, this Court has been called upon numerous times to deal with problems involving the Huttonsville Correctional Center. A brief review of these problems is helpful not only to an...