White v. Haines

Decision Date07 July 2005
Docket NumberNo. 32190.,No. 32194.,32190.,32194.
Citation618 S.E.2d 423
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesJohn Heath WHITE, Petitioner Below, Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden; Jerry Hainey; and Jim Rubenstein, Respondents Below, Appellees. and John Heath White, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. James Rubenstein; Evelyn Seifert; Karl Hoffman; Kandi Lloyd; Tony Balgo; and Prime Care Medical Services, Defendants Below, Appellees.

John Heath White, Moundsville, Pro Se.

Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Charles Houdyschell, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for the Appellees, William S. Haines, Jerry Hainey, James "Jim" Rubenstein, and Evelyn Seifert.

Justice DAVIS delivered the Opinion of the Court.

DAVIS, Justice.

The appellant herein and petitioner below, John Heath White (hereinafter referred to as "Mr. White"), appeals from two separate orders. In Case Number 32190, the Circuit Court of Randolph County, by order entered December 12, 2003, dismissed Mr. White's complaint against the appellees herein and respondents below, William S. Haines,1 Jerry Hainey,2 and Jim Rubenstein3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the respondents" or "the appellees"). In his complaint, Mr. White claimed that he had been sexually abused while he was incarcerated and alleged that the named respondents had failed to protect him from such attack. The circuit court, in dismissing Mr. White's complaint, found that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his civil cause of action as required by W. Va.Code § 25-1A-2(a) (2000) (Repl.Vol.2004) and that he had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1996). On appeal to this Court, Mr. White complains that the circuit court erroneously found that he was required to exhaust his administrative remedies when W. Va.Code § 25-1A-2(c) expressly excepts claims of sexual abuse from such requirement; improperly found that he had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted; and failed to liberally construe his pro se pleadings.

In Case Number 32194, Mr. White appeals from an order entered on September 9, 2003, by the Circuit Court of Marshall County. By the terms of that order, the circuit court dismissed Mr. White's complaint against the appellees herein and defendants below, James Rubenstein4 and Evelyn Seifert5 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the defendants" or "the appellees").6 In his complaint, Mr. White claimed that he had been denied adequate health care during his incarceration. The circuit court, in dismissing Mr. White's complaint, found that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his civil cause of action as required by W. Va.Code § 25-1A-2(a) (2000) (Repl.Vol.2004). On appeal to this Court, Mr. White complains that the circuit court erroneously found that he was required to exhaust his administrative remedies when, he claims, he has complied with the appropriate grievance procedures.

Based upon the similarity of the issues presented and the parties involved in these two appeals, this Court, by order entered June 22, 2005, consolidated both cases for purposes of rendering a decision therein. Upon a review of the parties' arguments, the record evidence, and the pertinent authorities, we reverse the December 12, 2003, decision of the Randolph County Circuit Court in Case Number 32190. Additionally, we reverse the September 9, 2003, decision of the Marshall County Circuit Court in Case Number 32194. Furthermore, we remand both matters for the appointment of counsel for Mr. White and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The factual and procedural history underlying each of the circuit courts' rulings will be set forth separately, as follows.

A. Case Number 32190Randolph County Sexual Abuse Proceeding

On or about August 8, 2000, Mr. White, who was then incarcerated at Huttonsville Correctional Center,7 was allegedly beaten, while showering, by seven or eight other inmates and then raped and sodomized by approximately two or three of those inmates. Afterwards, Mr. White complained to prison officials about the incident and asked to be moved to a different dormitory within the prison because one of Mr. White's attackers was residing in the same dormitory in which he was then housed. He additionally complained in writing to each of the named respondents.8 Approximately one month after he was attacked, Mr. White was moved to a different dormitory.9

Thereafter, on July 22, 2002, Mr. White filed a civil action in the Circuit Court of Randolph County, naming Mr. Haines, Mr. Hainey, and Mr. Rubenstein respondents thereto, alleging that they had failed to protect him from the above-described attack refused to promptly move him to a dormitory in which none of his attackers were housed; and otherwise failed to respond to his complaints about the incident in violation of the constitutional provisions prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment10 and 42 U.S.C. § 198311. The respondents collectively replied to Mr. White's complaint by moving to dismiss based upon Mr. White's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by W. Va.Code § 25-1A-2(a)12 and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure13.

The circuit court reviewed the parties' arguments; considered the evidence submitted by Mr. White in support of his civil action; and entered its final order on December 12, 2003. Ruling in favor of the respondents, the circuit court found and concluded that, despite the language of W. Va.Code § 25-1A-2(c) permitting an inmate to file a civil action where past, current, or imminent sexual abuse has been alleged, Mr. White was nevertheless required to "prove that he exhausted the administrative remedies provided by the Department of Corrections" and that he "has failed to do so." Rather than filing grievances on the forms specifically designated therefor, the court found that Mr. White's "complaints [were] simply written in letter form. In addition, the letters included not just one complaint, but seemed to ramble on and reference several different issues." Accordingly, the court found that Mr. White had "failed to exhaust his administrative remedies within the Department of Corrections" and dismissed his action.

Additionally, the circuit court concluded that Mr. White had "not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted." In this regard, the court found that "[c]omplaints filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must specifically outline the individual actions committed by each defendant which supposedly violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights." Instead, however, the court determined that Mr. White had

generally asserted that he was "denied his statutory and constitutional rights" . . . [and] that he was "denied proper protection from harm," "denied proper help from administration," "harassed and retaliated against because of his grievance writing," "suffered mental and physical trauma" and was "forced to suffer because of the negligence of the [respondents]."

Finally, the court found that Mr. White's § 1983 action against the named respondents was improper insofar as neither they nor the State of West Virginia are "a `person' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Therefore, the circuit court also found dismissal to be proper based upon Mr. White's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

B. Case Number 32194Marshall County Health Care Proceeding

Mr. White states that he has been incarcerated at various correctional facilities in the State of West Virginia since 1998; he currently is housed at Northern Regional Jail and Correctional Facility (hereinafter referred to as "Northern"). During his incarceration, he has received medical care for his "severe acid reflux and irritable bowel syndrome" afflictions.14 Before he was transferred to Northern, Mr. White had received prescription medications for these conditions and transported these medicines and his medical records with him when he was transferred to Northern.

Upon his arrival at Northern, Mr. White complains that he received only a cursory examination by a nurse who allegedly did not review his medical file. Approximately one week after his transfer, Dr. Balgo conducted a brief examination of Mr. White and renewed his prescription medications for ninety days. After the expiration of that prescription, Mr. White asked Dr. Balgo to renew his prior prescription. In response to Mr. White's requests, however, Dr. Balgo purportedly informed him that he did not have the ailments of which he claimed and that if he continued to experience discomfort, he could obtain a lower dose over-the-counter medication at the facility's commissary.

In response to Dr. Balgo's denial of his request for a prescription renewal, Mr. White started his grievance procedure by filing a G-1 grievance with Kandi Lloyd on December 12, 2002; Ms. Lloyd responded and denied the grievance on January 2, 2003. Mr. White next filed a G-2 grievance with Ms. Seifert on January 9, 2003; Ms. Seifert responded and denied the grievance on January 13, 2003. Thereafter, Mr. White filed an appeal with Mr. Rubenstein on January 17, 2003, which appeal was denied on February 6, 2003.

Having failed to receive a favorable response to his complaints, Mr. White again pursued the grievance process, filing a G-1 grievance with Ms. Lloyd on February 19, 2003, which Ms. Lloyd denied on February 25, 2003. Mr. White then filed a G-2 grievance with Ms. Seifert on February 27, 2003, which Ms. Seifert answered on March 7, 2003. In her response, Ms. Seifert informed Mr. White that he had an outstanding bill from the medical department regarding his receipt of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Lamerique v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • June 14, 2019
    ...West Virginia, the administrative remedy procedure of an inmate's place of confinement governs the exhaustion process. White v. Haines, 618 S.E.2d 423, 431 (W. Va. 2005) ("[B]efore an inmate may bring a civil action challenging the conditions of his/her confinement, he/she must first exhaus......
  • Sutton v. W. Reg'l Jail, 3:21-cv-00109
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • November 15, 2021
    ...Virginia, the administrative remedy procedure of an inmate's place of 23 confinement governs the exhaustion process. White v. Haines, 618 S.E.2d 423, 431 (W.Va. 2005) (“[B]efore an inmate may bring a civil action challenging the conditions of his/her confinement, he/she must first exhaust t......
  • Snyder v. Lakin Corr. Ctr., Case No. 3:18-cv-01021
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • July 5, 2019
    ...West Virginia, the administrative remedy procedure of an inmate's place of confinement governs the exhaustion process. White v. Haines, 618 S.E.2d 423, 431 (W.Va. 2005) ("[B]efore an inmate may bring a civil action challenging the conditions of his/her confinement, he/she must first exhaust......
  • Russell v. Butcher, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00918
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • July 17, 2020
    ...facility before instituting a civil action challenging the inmate's confinement. W. Va. Code § 25-1A-2; see also White v. Haines, 618 S.E.2d 423, 431 (W. Va. 2005) ("[B]efore an inmate may bring a civil action challenging the conditions of his/her confinement, he/she must first exhaust the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT