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 ...
read more >
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.
Kristen Sagar - 02/24/2006
compress summary
