Case: State ex rel. Sams v. Kirby

No. 26647 | West Virginia state supreme court

Filed Date: 2002

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Six prisoners lodged in West Virginia's regional and county jails while awaiting transfer to prisons, including a new one under construction, filed a lawsuit under W. Va. Code § 62-13-1 in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia against the state's Department of Corrections (DOC) on October 4, 2000. The plaintiffs alleged that the delays in transfers from facilities that were not operated by the DOC and were designed for shorter-term stays to longer-term prisons was a denial of the rehabi…

Six prisoners lodged in West Virginia's regional and county jails while awaiting transfer to prisons, including a new one under construction, filed a lawsuit under W. Va. Code § 62-13-1 in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia against the state's Department of Corrections (DOC) on October 4, 2000. The plaintiffs alleged that the delays in transfers from facilities that were not operated by the DOC and were designed for shorter-term stays to longer-term prisons was a denial of the rehabilitative programs to which they were entitled. The prisoners were represented by the Kanawha County Public Defender's Office.

On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia issued an unsigned per curiam opinion granting relief in mandamus, appointing Special Master Forrest H. Roles to develop a long term plan for reducing the number of state prisoners held in county and regional jails. State ex rel. Sams v. Kirby, 542 S.E.2d 889 (W. Va. 2000). On September 20, 2002, Roles submitted the long term plan to the court.

On January 2, 2003, the court issued an order directing that they should revisit the matter after one year to see what progress had been made by the legislative and executive branches of the state government toward enforcing the plan. On November 30, 2005, the court issued a second unsigned per curiam opinion in the case, stating that the long term plan had been a dismal failure due to the failure of the legislative and executive branches to act upon it. State ex rel. Sams v. Commissioner, 625 S.E.2d 334 (W. Va. 2005). They urged the two branches to act, noting that policies related to prisons were not up to the judiciary to determine. The court added that if the executive and legislative branches failed to do so, they could soon be answering to a federal court for violating prisoners' rights under the U.S. Constitution. As it stood, however, the court found that it could not issue a writ of mandamus because the persons experiencing constitutional deprivations were inmates housed outside of DOC facilities.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (2/24/2006)

People


Attorney for Plaintiff

Campbell, Wendy (West Virginia)

Castelle, George (West Virginia)

Attorney for Defendant

Boothroyd, John H. (West Virginia)

Houdyschell, Charles P. Jr. (West Virginia)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Cardinal, Chad M (West Virginia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

26909

26910

26911

27308

27309

No. 26647

Reported Opinion

Dec. 8, 2000

Dec. 8, 2000

Order/Opinion

542 S.E.2d 542

No. 26647

Opinion

Nov. 30, 2005

Nov. 30, 2005

Order/Opinion

625 S.E.2d 625

Docket

Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 2:38 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: West Virginia

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: 2002

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Inmates who had been sentenced to confinement in facilities of West Virginia Division of Corrections but who nonetheless remained confined in jails asserting that their continued incarceration in regional and county jails was unlawful

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Unknown

Class Action Outcome: Unknown

Defendants

West Virginia Department of Corrections , State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 2000 - None

Issues

General:

Classification / placement

Transportation

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Crowding / caseload

Type of Facility:

Government-run