Submitted: November 4, 1992
Filed: December 11, 1992
James F. Companion
Schrader, Byrd, Byrum & Companion
Wheeling, West Virginia
Barbara L. Baxter
W. Va. Legal Services Plan, Inc.
Wheeling, West Virginia
Attorneys for the Appellants
Rita A. Stuart
Special Assistant Attorney General
W. Va. Department of Corrections
Charleston, West Virginia
Attorney for the Appellees
The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.
"This Court has a duty to take such actions as are necessary to protect and guard the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of West Virginia." Syllabus Point 2, Crain v. Bordenkircher, 180 W. Va. 246, 376 S.E.2d 140 (1988).
Per Curiam:
On November 4, 1992, this Court heard a status report
concerning the construction of and transition to the new
penitentiary at Mount Olive, as ordered by this Court in Crain v.
Bordenkircher, 180 W. Va. 246, 376 S.E.2d 140 (1988) (Crain III).
This status report was accompanied by a document entitled "Mount
Olive Operational Procedures," which provides administrative
guidelines governing fiscal, personnel, inmate, and other aspects
of prison management.See footnote 1 It appears that this operational procedures
plan is approximately 70 percent complete. The respondents assert,
however, that completion of the operational procedures, which
represents Phase I of the overall plan of readiness for the opening
of the Mount Olive facility, is scheduled for January 1993. The
respondents have also submitted a proposed budget for funding the
operation of the penitentiary.See footnote 2 In their response, the petitioners
object to various aspects of the proposed operational procedures as
either incomplete or contrary to established law or previous court
orders.
The Special Master appointed by this Court has reviewed
the operational procedures plan and has found those portions
submitted to this Court acceptable. He has also found that
although the plan is not complete, the respondents are making "a
sound and serious effort" to comply with the mandates of this Court
with regard to the Mount Olive facility. The Special Master is of
the opinion that many, if not all, of the petitioners' objections
to the operational procedures plan can be resolved through informal
discussions with the Commissioner of Corrections and his staff
prior to the projected completion date of Phase I in January 1993.
Finally, the Special Master has found the proposed budget adequate
to fund the operation of the Mount Olive facility.
In the ongoing process of supervising the respondents'
efforts with regard to the new penitentiary, we have repeatedly
relied on Syllabus Point 2 of Crain III:
"This Court has a duty to take such
actions as are necessary to protect and guard
the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of West Virginia."
We find the respondents' recent filing with this Court of
the operational information requested to be acceptable. The
Special Master substantially approved the operational procedures
plan and found good reason to afford the respondents more time to
complete it. We conclude, therefore, that the respondents should
be allowed to complete the operational procedures in accordance
with their proposed schedule which contemplates that Phase I will
be finished in January, 1993.
Consequently, we direct the respondents to submit the
completed operational procedures plan to the Special Master and
petitioners' counsel by March 1, 1993, and we set this matter for
further hearing before this Court on May 4, 1993. Prior to such
hearing, we expect the parties to have discussed any objections to
the plan in consultation with our Special Master so that any
unresolved objections may be brought to the attention of this
Court.
Relief directed and hearing scheduled.
"Section 1 - Fiscal Management
"Section 2 - Personnel Administration
"Section 3 - Administrative Information and
Research
"Section 4 - Records Management
"Section 5 - Physical Plant
"Section 6 - Safety and Emergency Procedures
"Section 7 - Security and Control
"Section 8 - Special Management Inmates
"Section 9 - Food Service
"Section 10 - Sanitation and Hygiene
"Section 11 - Health Care
"Section 12 - Inmate Rights
"Section 13 - Inmate Rules and Discipline
"Section 14 - Inmate Reception
"Section 15 - Inmate Classification
"Section 16 - Inmate Release Programming
"Section 17 - Law Library
"Section 18 - Academic and Vocational
Education
"Section 19 - Recreation
"Section 20 - Religious Programming
"Section 21 - Social Services
"Section 22 - Citizen Involvement and
Volunteers"
"[T]he number and location of the State
inmates held in county jails, the costs and
reimbursement for such inmates, and the
proposed budget for reimbursement from the
Division of Corrections. The status report
should also include information of the
construction of additional facilities for the
housing of State inmates and other strategies
to reduce the number of inmates held in
county facilities." Crain v. Bordenkircher,
___ W. Va. ___, ___, 420 S.E.2d 732, 736
(1992).
The need for this information has been obviated by our subsequent decision in State ex rel. Smith v. Skaff, ___ W. Va. ___, ___, 420 S.E.2d 922, 926 (1992), wherein we ordered the Division of Corrections "to develop a plan within the next six months to provide some temporary arrangement to meet its obligation to house and detain all those lawfully sentenced to a state penal facility until such time as the new prison is completed." This plan is due on January 25, 1993.