State ex rel. Sams v. Commissioner

• Decision Date: 30 November 2005
• Docket Number: No. 26647.,26647.
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia ex rel. Daniel L. Sams, et al., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER, WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; Executive Director of the Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority; and the West Virginia Board of Probation and Parole, Respondents.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

625 S.E.2d 334

STATE of West Virginia ex rel. Daniel L. Sams, et al., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER, WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; Executive Director of the Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority; and the West Virginia Board of Probation and Parole, Respondents.

No. 26647.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: October 11, 2005.

Filed: November 30, 2005.

Syllabus by the Court

1. "Before this Court may properly issue a writ of mandamus three elements must coexist: (1) the existence of a clear right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) the existence of a legal duty on the part of the respondent to do the thing the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy at law." Syl. Pt. 3, Cooper v. Gwinn, 171 W.Va. 245, 298 S.E.2d 781 (1981).

2. "The statutory scheme of this state places a nondiscretionary duty upon the Division of Corrections to incarcerate those inmates who are sentenced to the penitentiary in a state penal facility operated by the Division of Corrections. Hence, the Division of Corrections is prohibited from lodging inmates in a county or regional jail facility absent the availability of space in these facilities once the inmates have been sentenced to a Division of Corrections facility." Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Smith v. Skaff, 187 W.Va. 651, 420 S.E.2d 922 (1992).

George Castelle, Esq., Wendy Campbell, Kanawha County Public Defender Office, Charleston, for the Petitioners.

Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, John H. Boothroyd, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for the Respondents, West Virginia Division of Corrections and West Virginia Board of Probation and Parole.

Chad M. Cardinal, Charleston, for the Respondent, West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority.

David Skundor, Mt. Olive, Pro Se Amicus Curiae.

The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.

Justice STARCHER concurs and reserves the right to file a concurring opinion.

PER CURIAM.

This Court sua sponte¹ issued an order on July 11, 2005, directing that the Respondents file a statement² regarding the extent to which each component of the September 20, 2002, Long-Term Plan for Reducing the Number of State Prisoners Held in County and Regional Jails³ (hereinafter referred to as "Long Term Plan") has been implemented. Following oral argument on this critical issue of overcrowding combined with review of the relevant reports and case history of this protracted matter, we reach the decision that it is the combined responsibility of the Executive and Legislative branches to fulfill the terms of the Long Term Plan. Finding no immediate evidence of conditions that are currently resulting in unconstitutional deprivations⁴ to the Petitioner inmates, we can only urge the other two departments of government to promptly act to address the ongoing issues presented by an ever-burgeoning prison population and to recognize that a failure to act with sufficient alacrity may result in either this Court, or a federal court, being required to intervene in the future.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

This case had its genesis when six prisoners sought a writ of mandamus to compel their transfer from a regional jail to facilities operated by the West Virginia Division of Corrections ("DOC"). In response to that petition, this Court granted a moulded writ through which we appointed a new special master⁵ to oversee the preparation of a long-range plan for the transfer of inmates lodged in regional and county jails awaiting transfer to DOC facilities.⁶ See State ex rel. Sams v. Kirby, 208 W.Va. 726, 542 S.E.2d 889 (2000). The much-awaited Long Term Plan was finally submitted to this Court on September 20, 2002.

In his final report attached to the Long Term Plan, the Special Master opined that "the Plan involves some critical steps which the Parties cannot take except in response to necessary legislat[ive] and executive action which is beyond their control" and notes further that "the question of whether to adopt many of the recommendations is a political one and outside the authority of the Parties to resolve." Notwithstanding these observations on the part of the Special Master, the Long Term Plan does contain specific recommendations for improving the serious bed shortages within the DOC. Among such suggestions were detailed plans for completing or expanding various facilities for the purpose of adding more beds to the state's penal system.⁷ Besides the construction of additional beds, the Long Term Plan set forth various options for addressing the bed space issue presented by an expanding prison population. Those various options included three general approaches to the problem. The first suggestion requires the adoption of specific changes to sentencing policies and practices.⁸ The second option involves the transfer of inmates from this state to neighboring states on a contractual basis. As a final option, the Long Term Plan considered the need to build additional prison beds⁹ in fiscal year 2007 if the first two options do not produce the desired result of substantially reducing the number of prisoners currently housed outside the DOC.

After this Court received the Long Term Plan, we issued an order on January 2, 2003, through which we directed that the matter should be revisited by this body after one year. We further ordered at that time the transmittal of that Long Term Plan to both the Legislative and Executive branches of government for their consideration of the various options identified within the plan for addressing the issue of providing bed space to the state's prison population.

On October 10, 2003, the West Virginia Board of Probation and Parole was made a party to this matter. This Court further ordered both the Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority and the DOC to supply us with reports¹⁰ setting forth updated statistical information pertaining to the backlog of prisoners housed in various regional jail facilities awaiting transfer to DOC facilities. Pursuant to this Court's order of July 11, 2005,¹¹ the matter was scheduled for oral argument on October 11, 2005, for the purpose of addressing the extent to which the various components of the Long Term Plan had been implemented.

II. Standard of Review

Because this matter was initially presented to the Court by prisoners seeking extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus for the purpose of securing their transfer to DOC facilities, we continue to review this matter pursuant to the standard applicable for such procedural matters. As we held in syllabus point three of Cooper v. Gwinn, 171 W.Va. 245, 298 S.E.2d 781 (1981):

Before this Court may properly issue a writ of mandamus three elements must coexist: (1) the existence of a clear right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) the existence of a legal duty on the part of the respondent to do the thing the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy at law.

Accordingly, the issues presented by this case will be examined pursuant to this well-ensconced standard of review.

III. Discussion

In the eyes of the prisoners who initiated this petition and their counsel, the implementation of the various options identified within the Long Term Plan for reducing the severe bed shortage situation has been a dismal failure. Statistically, as of August 2005 the backlog of prisoners being housed in regional jails awaiting transfer to DOC facilities is 1511,¹² a number which is significantly higher than the figure of 745 that existed when this litigation commenced. Based on the current backlog, the prisoners report that the regional jails are currently exceeding their capacity by 1181 prisoners. The result of this overcrowding at the regional level is to force inmates to sleep on the floor on mats.

The prisoners maintain that despite the clear solutions identified in the Long Range Plan for reducing the backlog of prisoners improperly housed in regional jail facilities¹³ the Respondent DOC and Board of Parole "have adopted practices that are among the primary causes for the skyrocketing backlog of prisoners ...: unreasonably low rates of granting parole, unreasonably high rates of revocation of good time credits and parole, a refusal to award good time, a refusal to identify appropriate candidates for commutation or early release, and a refusal to take almost any significant steps to reduce the number of prisoners in DOC custody." As evidence of a backwards slide in addressing the problem, the prisoners note that the current rate of granting parole is lower than in 2000 when this petition was filed.

In response to the prisoners' claims, the DOC acknowledges the unfavorable increase of prisoners lodged in regional jail facilities but states that "the vast majority of this increase is attributable to delays in construction¹⁴ and a higher number of inmate commitments than was anticipated in the plan." After noting that its admission rate has grown by 33%,¹⁵ the DOC asserts that it is without sufficient resources to resolve the problem on its own. Correctly identifying the problem as one which requires both legislative involvement in terms of obtaining the necessary resources to fund construction and renovation projects and the involvement of the executive branch as far as policy decisions regarding parole and sentencing issues, the DOC observes that "unless West Virginia decides to radically alter the consequences for criminal activity,... additional prison beds are going to have to be made available."

On the issue of parole, the Parole Board indicates that its current grant rate is 37%.¹⁶ Because the Long Term Plan used a rate of 41.5% in calculating future prison populations, this resulted in an additional 240 inmates remaining outside the DOC system based on the plan's projected prison population.¹⁷ The Parole Board explains further that the objective of reducing...