IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
September 2002 Term
___________
No. 30493
___________
PHILLIP A. WARD,
Plaintiff Below, Appellant
v.
MICHAEL H. CLIVER,
In His Official and Individual Capacity,
Defendant Below, Appellee
________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County
Hon. Charles E. King, Jr., Judge
Case No. 01-C-1794
AFFIRMED
________________________________________________________
Submitted: October 9, 2002
Filed: December 2, 2002
Phillip A. Ward
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.
Pro se
Attorney General
Heather A. Connolly
Assistant Attorney General
Charleston, West Virginia
Attorneys for Appellee
JUSTICE STARCHER delivered the Opinion of the Court.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. While obviously frivolous lawsuits filed by inmates may be dismissed
prior to the issuance of process pursuant to W.Va. Code, 25-1A-4 [2000], when there is any
reasonable possibility that a lawsuit filed by an inmate, liberally construed, raises a
potentially cognizable or colorable claim, the procedures of W.Va. Code, 25-1A-4 [2000]
should not be employed by circuit courts.
2. Orders dismissing claims pursuant to W.Va. Code, 25-1A-4 [2000] must
state the court's reasoning and must set forth the specific factual and legal basis for the
court's decision.
Starcher, Justice:
This
is a case in which the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County, on June 28th, 2001, dismissed a lawsuit filed by the
appellant, Phillip A. Ward, against the appellee, Michael H. Cliver, prior to
the issuance of process. Mr. Ward is an inmate at a state correctional facility;
Mr. Cliver was at pertinent times a correctional officer at the same facility.
Mr. Ward appeals and asks this Court to reverse the circuit court's order of
dismissal.
The circuit court issued its order of dismissal pursuant to the provisions of
W.Va. Code, 25-1A-4 [2000], which provides as follows with respect to certain civil actions
filed by persons confined in correctional facilities:
(a) The court shall, prior to issuance of process, review the
complaint, petition or other initial pleading to determine whether
a civil action is frivolous or malicious as defined in subsection
(b) of this section and fails to state a claim for which relief can
be granted or seeks monetary relief from a party who is immune
from such relief. If the complaint, petition or other initial
pleading is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for
which relief can be granted or seeks monetary relief from a party
who is immune from such relief, the court shall not issue
process and shall dismiss the case.
(b) A civil action is frivolous or malicious if it: (1) Has no
arguable basis in fact or law; or (2) Is substantially similar to a
previous civil action in which the inmate did not substantially
prevail, either in that it is brought against the same parties or in
that the civil action arises from the same operative facts of a previous civil action; or (3) Has been brought with the intent to harass an
opposing party.
(See footnote 1)
The circuit court's order that is at issue in the instant case states in its entirety
as follows:
On the 28th day of June, 2001, the Court, pursuant to W.Va.
Code §25-1A-4, prior to the issuance of process, reviewed the
complaint filed in the above styled action and hereby makes the
following findings with respect to said complaint:
{1} This is “a civil action” filed by a current “inmate”, and;
{2} This civil action is frivolous and/or malicious and fails to
state a claim for which relief can be granted and seeks monetary
relief from a party who may be immune from such relief as set
forth in W.Va. Code §25-1A-4.
Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion to and does hereby
ORDER that process not be issued with respect to said
complaint and further that said complaint be and the same is
DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the docket of this Court.
The Court does FURTHER ORDER that a certified copy of
this Order be sent to all parties or counsel of record. The Court
notes the objection and exception of the party of parties
aggrieved by this Order.
We have carefully reviewed
the pleadings and exhibits that have been submitted by Mr. Ward, and additional
documents from the Court of Claims obtained by the Clerk of this Court.
(See footnote 2) These
documents show that in August of 1998 Mr. Ward filed a claim in the West Virginia
Court of Claims against the West Virginia Division of Corrections
(“DOC”). That claim contended that the DOC had not returned a pair of shoes and legal
papers to Mr. Ward, that Mr. Ward claimed had been taken from him when he was
transferred temporarily to a “lock-up” unit in January of 1998. In December of 1999, the
Court of Claims ruled for Mr. Ward, and the DOC was ordered to pay to Mr. Ward the cost
of the shoes _ $32.75 _ which the DOC did. (The legal papers were, the record shows,
replaceable without cost.)
Mr. Ward thereafter filed a civil suit against Mr. Cliver, who had testified in
the Court of Claims proceeding that no shoes had been taken from Mr. Ward by the DOC.
Mr. Ward contends in his circuit court suit that Mr. Cliver's testimony before the Court of
Claims was perjury. This is the lawsuit that the circuit court dismissed pursuant to W.Va.
Code, 25-1A-4 [2000] prior to the issuance of process, leading to the instant appeal.
II.
Discussion
Because Mr. Ward has already obtained damages in the Court of Claims, we
conclude that the circuit court did not err in dismissing Mr. Ward's suit without issuing
process. However, we take this occasion to briefly address several issues regarding the
implementation of
W.Va. Code, 25-1A-4 [2000] by circuit courts _ this being a statute that
this Court has not discussed before the instant case.
Obviously, persons who are imprisoned do not lose their constitutional right
to use the courts to seek to obtain justice.
Cf. State ex rel. Anstey v. Davis, 203 W.Va. 538,
509 S.E.2d 579 (1998);
W.Va. Constitution, Article 3, Sec. 17 (“The courts of this State
shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him, in his person, property or
reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law; and justice shall be administered without
sale, denial or delay.”). In fact, history teaches that access to the courts by inmates is a
healthy and necessary (but sometimes burdensome) check on the incarceration system.
Additionally, we note that
courts in this nation have not ordinarily (if at all) “screened”
the merits of lawsuits prior to the issuance of process and the issues being
formally joined. Placing such a novel,
sua sponte “screening”
role on courts in any but the most exceptional circumstances runs a real risk
of eroding and altering a fundamental characteristic of the American court
system in our constitutional scheme. Therefore, a statute like the Prisoner
Litigation Reform Act, that places a court in the role of judging the merits
of suits when the case is in a non-adversarial posture, must be given the
narrowest possible construction and application.
(See footnote 3)
We hold, therefore, that while
obviously frivolous lawsuits filed by inmates may be dismissed prior to the
issuance of process pursuant to W.Va. Code, 25-1A-4 [2000], when there
is any reasonable possibility that a lawsuit filed by an inmate, liberally construed,
raises a potentially cognizable or colorable claim, the procedures of W.Va.
Code, 25-1A-4 [2000] should not be employed by circuit courts. Additionally,
we hold that orders dismissing claims pursuant to W.Va. Code, 25-1A-4
[2000] must state the court's reasoning and must set forth the specific factual
and legal basis for the court's decision. (See footnote 4)
The order of the circuit court in the instant case does not meet this latter
standard _ there is simply a boilerplate reference to the statutory language. However, we
conclude that no purpose would be served by a remand under the facts of the instant case.
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.