STATE EX REL. v. Dept. of Military Affairs

• Citation: 573 S.E.2d 1,212 W.Va. 407
• Decision Date: 11 October 2002
• Docket Number: No. 30407.,30407.
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia ex rel. Michael A. WILLIAMS, Brett McClaskie, Gregory Mitchell, Dwight Warren, and John Thacker, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, James E. Rubenstein, Commissioner, and William S. Haines, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondents.
• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia

573 S.E.2d 1

212 W.Va. 407

STATE of West Virginia ex rel. Michael A. WILLIAMS, Brett McClaskie, Gregory Mitchell, Dwight Warren, and John Thacker, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, James E. Rubenstein, Commissioner, and William S. Haines, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondents.

No. 30407.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted September 4, 2002.

Decided October 11, 2002.

Jason E. Huber, Esq., Forman & Crane, L.C., Charleston, for Petitioners.

Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Esq., Attorney General, Barry L. Koerber, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for Respondents. DAVIS, Chief Justice.

The petitioners, Michael A. Williams, Brett McClaskie, Gregory Mitchell, Dwight Warren, and John Thacker [hereinafter collectively referred to as "Williams" or "the petitioners"],¹ individuals incarcerated at Huttonsville Correctional Center [hereinafter referred to as "HCC"], seek relief through the extraordinary remedy of mandamus² for alleged injustices committed by Division of Corrections officials³ at its Huttonsville facility. Specifically, the petitioners challenge HCC's procedures for (1) restoring good time credit that has been revoked in conjunction with an inmate's disciplinary violation and (2) notifying prisoners of alleged disciplinary violations. Upon review of the parties' briefs, supporting arguments, and pertinent authorities, we grant as moulded the requested writ of mandamus. In sum, W. Va.Code § 28-5-27(f) (1984) (Repl.Vol.2001) grants to the Commissioner of Corrections the sole authority to promulgate disciplinary rules for the correctional institutions under his/her control, which authority includes the power to approve requests to restore an inmate's previously forfeited good time credit. Additionally, the restoration of an inmate's previously forfeited good time credit should be accomplished on a case-by-case basis in accordance with W. Va.Code § 28-5-27(f) (1984) (Repl.Vol. 2001) and any policies or procedures implemented by the Commissioner of Corrections thereunder. Finally, notice of alleged disciplinary violations must be provided to the charged inmate within a reasonable time of the occurrence giving rise to such disciplinary proceedings and should be stated with such specificity as to permit the inmate to understand the nature of the charge(s) against him/her.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In August, 1999, Petitioner Williams was transferred to HCC after committing assault and battery at the Huntington Work Release Center.⁴ As a result of this offense, Williams lost one year of good time credit. Subsequently, in March, 2000, Williams was disciplined for fighting with another HCC inmate. Following these infractions and the resultant discipline therefor,⁵ Williams filed, in this Court, pro se petitions for writs of mandamus, on August 28, 2001, and habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, on September 19, 2001.⁶ In his first petition, Williams alleges that he has been denied rehabilitative services during his incarceration and that he has been improperly placed on restrictive status. The subject of his second petition concerns the notice afforded to inmates when they are charged with violations of disciplinary rules. By order of this Court, entered February 21, 2002, and clarified April 1, 2002, a rule to show cause was issued

direct[ing the parties] to address only the issues contained in petitioner's September 19, 2001 filing of a writ of habeas corpus, which relates to the magistrate system within the institution and the procedures by which the magistrate system interprets the Division of Corrections' policy directives.

Thereafter, this Court appointed counsel for Williams, and permitted additional inmates⁷ who have been similarly aggrieved by HCC's policies and procedures to join in his petition for extraordinary relief.

II. STANDARD FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT

The relief sought by the petitioners herein is a writ for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.⁸ Typically, "`[m]andamus lies to require the discharge by a public officer of a nondiscretionary duty.' Point 3 Syllabus, State ex rel. Greenbrier County Airport Authority v. Hanna, 151 W.Va. 479[, 153 S.E.2d 284 (1967) ]." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. West Virginia Hous. Dev. Fund v. Copenhaver, 153 W.Va. 636, 171 S.E.2d 545 (1969). Accord Syl. pt. 3, Allen v. State Human Rights Comm'n, 174 W.Va. 139, 324 S.E.2d 99 (1984) ("`A peremptory writ of mandamus will issue to require the discharge by a public official of a non-discretionary duty.' Syl. pt. 4, Glover v. Sims, 121 W.Va. 407, 3 S.E.2d 612 (1939)."). Provided the case is appropriate for the consideration of such relief,

[a] writ of mandamus will issue when three elements coexist: (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) a legal duty on the part of the respondent to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy.

Syl. pt. 5, Parks v. Board of Review of West Virginia Dep't of Employment Sec., 188 W.Va. 447, 425 S.E.2d 123 (1992). With these standards in mind, we proceed to consider the parties' arguments.

III. DISCUSSION

On petition to this Court, Williams seeks relief from certain policies of HCC concerning the restoration of good time credit and the timeliness and sufficiency of notice to inmates regarding disciplinary violations they are alleged to have committed. We will consider each of these complaints in turn.

A. Restoration of Good Time Credit

The petitioners first seek relief from HCC's procedures regarding the restoration of good time credit revoked as a result of a disciplinary violation. Specifically, they allege that HCC currently has in place a policy whereby inmates are not permitted to apply for the restoration of such credits until they are within two years of their date of discharge. Secondly, the petitioners claim that inmates who have committed Class I rule violations have been denied the restoration of their good time solely on the basis of their commission of such offenses.

"The provisions of West Virginia Code § 28-5-27 (1992) solely govern the accumulation of `good time' for inmates sentenced to the West Virginia State Penitentiary." Syl. pt. 3, State v. Jarvis, 199 W.Va. 635, 487 S.E.2d 293 (1997). See also W. Va.Code § 28-5-27(k) (1984) (Repl.Vol.2001) ("There shall be no grants or accumulations of good time or credit to any inmate now or hereafter serving a sentence in the custody of the department of corrections except in the manner provided in this section."). In pertinent part, this statute directs that

(a) All adult inmates now in the custody of the commissioner of corrections, or hereafter committed to the custody of the commissioner of corrections ... shall be granted commutation from their sentences for good conduct in accordance with this section.

(b) Such commutation of sentence, hereinafter called "good time," shall be deducted from the maximum term of indeterminate sentences or from the fixed term of determinate sentences.

(c) Each inmate committed to the custody of the commissioner of corrections and incarcerated in a penal facility pursuant to such commitment shall be granted one day good time for each day he or she is incarcerated....

W. Va.Code § 28-5-27 (1984) (Repl.Vol. 2001).

Of particular relevance to the instant proceeding is W. Va.Code § 28-5-27(f), which permits the revocation of an inmate's accrued good time credits if he/she commits a disciplinary violation during his/her incarceration:

(f) The commissioner of corrections shall promulgate separate disciplinary rules for each institution under his control in which adult felons are incarcerated, which rules shall describe acts which inmates are prohibited from committing, procedures for charging individual inmates for violation of such rules and for determining the guilt or innocence of inmates charged with such violations and the sanctions which may be imposed for such violations. A copy of such rules shall be given to each inmate. For each such violation, by an inmate so sanctioned, any part or all of the good time which has been granted to such inmate pursuant to this section may be forfeited and revoked by the warden or superintendent of the institution in which the violation occurred. The warden or superintendent, when appropriate and with approval of the commissioner, may restore any good time so forfeited.

W. Va.Code § 28-5-27(f) (emphasis added). It is from the various policies adopted and implemented by HCC in conjunction with this statutory language that the petitioners seek relief through mandamus.

1. Request for good time restoration limited to two-year period preceding discharge date. The petitioners first complain that respondent Haines, Warden of HCC, impermissibly prohibits inmates, who have lost good time credit following their commission of disciplinary violations, from applying for the restoration of such good time credit until the two-year period immediately preceding their discharge date. Although there is no explicit written policy to this effect, petitioner Gregory Mitchell contends that he nevertheless received written notice from an HCC unit manager, dated June 4, 2002, indicating that Warden Haines would not approve any good time contract for the restoration of lost good time credits "if [the requesting inmate is] more than 2 years from discharge."

This practice, the petitioners claim, violates W. Va.Code § 28-5-27 and the Commissioner's own Policy Directive implementing the same. See West Virginia Division of Corrections Policy Directive No. 151.02, §§ V.E., V.F.1-5 (May 15, 2001). While § 28-5-27(f) permits the Commissioner of the Division of Corrections to establish good time credit policies for each state facility, the petitioners complain that the practice adopted by HCC was not approved by the Commissioner as required by statute. They also assert that such a practice...