Crain v. Bordenkircher

• Decision Date: 13 April 1990
• Docket Number: No. 16646,16646
• Citation: 392 S.E.2d 227,182 W.Va. 787
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Robert Carl CRAIN v. Donald E. BORDENKIRCHER, Warden, West Virginia Penitentiary, et al.

Page 227

392 S.E.2d 227

182 W.Va. 787

Robert Carl CRAIN v. Donald E. BORDENKIRCHER, Warden, West Virginia Penitentiary, et al.

No. 16646.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

April 13, 1990.

Syllabus by the Court

" 'This Court has a duty to take such actions as are necessary to protect and guard the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of West Virginia.' Syllabus Point 2, Crain v. Bordenkircher, 180 W.Va. 246, 376 S.E.2d 140 (1988)." Syl., Crain v. Bordenkircher, 181 W.Va. 231, 382 S.E.2d 68 (1989).

James F. Companion, William D. Wilmoth, Barbara L. Baxter, Schrader, Stamp, Byrd, Byrum & Companion, Wheeling, for Robert Crain.

Roger W. Tompkins, Atty. Gen., Dana David, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Gillooly, Sr. Deputy Atty. Gen., Charleston, for Donald E. Bordenkircher, Warden, West Virginia Penitentiary.

PER CURIAM:

This proceeding originated in 1981 when inmates at the West Virginia Penitentiary (WVP) at Moundsville filed habeas corpus petitions requesting relief from their conditions of confinement, which they alleged constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution. These petitions were consolidated, and this Court appointed the Honorable Arthur M. Recht, Judge of the First Judicial Circuit, to conduct a hearing on this issue.

Following several hearings, the circuit court ruled that, when considering the deplorable conditions at the WVP in their totality, the conditions of confinement were unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment. ¹ The circuit court ordered the Department of Corrections to submit within 180 days a plan to correct the unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the WVP. The circuit court also incorporated a consent decree into its final order which provided for the appointment of a Special Master (who is now identified as a Monitor) to oversee the implementation of the mandates of the final decree.

In the fall of 1983, Judge Recht was replaced by the Honorable John F. Bronson. The Department of Corrections submitted a compliance plan to Judge Bronson who approved it by order dated September 1, 1984. This order, however, was appealed by the inmates on the basis that the compliance plan failed to satisfy all the requirements of the final order issued by Judge Recht. Thus, in Crain v. Bordenkircher, 176 W.Va. 338, 342 S.E.2d 422 (1986) (Crain I), we held that the compliance plan failed to meet the detailed provisions contained in Judge Recht's final order. We, therefore, appointed a Special Master (a person separate and apart from the Monitor formerly identified as a Special Master) to review a new compliance plan to be submitted in accordance with the dictates of that order within 120 days. We also continued the use of the Monitor to ensure that compliance was being made. ² The Department, after obtaining a forty-five day extension, submitted the revised compliance plan in September, 1986.

Upon review of the revised compliance plan, the Special Master, Patrick D. McManus, rejected the plan and recommended the construction of a new facility to be in use by July 1, 1992. The parties were offered an opportunity to comment on the Special Master's report, and this matter was scheduled for a hearing on September 13, 1988. Although the Department agreed that a new facility would correct most of the deficiencies, the Department was unable to act upon the Special Master's recommendation. The inability of the Department to comply with the Special Master's recommendation necessitated this Court's issuance of a rule to show cause in Crain v. Bordenkircher, 180 W.Va. 246, 376 S.E.2d 140 (1988) (Crain II), why this Court should not place the WVP in receivership. The respondents appeared before this Court on May 2, 1989, to respond to the rule to show cause.

In response to the rule to show cause, the respondents submitted that a receiver should not be appointed for the construction of a new penitentiary because the governor and the legislature believed that they would be able to replace the current facility by the Court's July 1, 1992 deadline. Therefore, in Crain v. Bordenkircher, 181 W.Va. 231, 382 S.E.2d 68 (1989) (Crain III), we deferred rendering a decision as to whether the WVP should be placed in receivership, and required a plan to be submitted to the Special Master by November 14, 1989. We scheduled this matter for further hearing on January 9, 1990.

The parties appeared before this Court on January 9, 1990, and represented that a plan had been submitted and approved by the Special Master. This Court, therefore, accepted the plan, recognizing a need for continued review of its implementation, and scheduled this matter for hearing on April 3, 1990, so that we could receive a progress report. Crain v. Bordenkircher, (No. 16646, March 13, 1990) (Crain IV).

The parties appeared before this Court on April 3, 1990, to provide a status report on the progress made to implement the plan for the replacement of the WVP. The respondents represent that a nine hundred and twenty six (926) bed maximum/medium security facility will be constructed in Fayette County, and that a joint regional jail/medium security facility will be constructed in Marshall County. The Marshall County facility will include one hundred (100) beds for medium security prisoners. The respondents further submit that the recently enacted Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30...