1 

### STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Larry Wayne Cantrell

, P laintiff Below, Petitioner

vs. ) No. 20

- 01 63 ( Kanawha County 1 9

- C

- 1235 )

West Virginia Division of Corrections and

Rehabilitation

, Defendant Below, Respondent



### MEMORANDUM DECISION

Self

- represented p etitioner Larry Wayne Cantrell appeals the January 2 8

, 20 20

, order of

the Circuit Court of Kanawha County dismissing his complaint pursuant to Title 42, Section 1983

of the United States Code regard ing the terms and conditions of his incarceration. R espondent West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“DCR”) , by counsel Briana J. Marino

, filed a summary response in support of the circuit court’s order. Petitioner filed a reply.

The Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record

present ed, the Court finds that the circuit court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of

law sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review of the court ’ s ruling

. For th is reason, this case is remanded to the circuit court for the entry of an order that includes sufficient findings

.

Petitioner is a prisoner who has been in the DCR’s custody since 20 10

. 1 According to petitioner, during his incarceration, the DCR has housed him either at the Northern Correctional Facility (“NCF”) or Mt. Olive Corre ctional Complex (“Mt. Olive”). Petitioner states that he suffers from a number of preexisting me n tal health conditions that make him prone to commit disciplinary

1 Petitioner pled guilty to first

- degree murder and attempted robbery for his part in a plan to steal drugs and money from an individual’s home. See State v. Holstein , 235 W. Va. 56, 60 & n.7, 770 S.E.2d 556, 560 & n.7 (2015). Petitioner was sentenced to a life term of incarceration with the possib ility of parole for his first

- degree murder conviction and to a concurrent term of twenty years of incarceration for the attempted robbery conviction

. Id. 

### FILED

December 10, 2020

EDYTHE NASH GAISER , CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA2 violations for which he is often subjected to short period s of punitive segregation. Petitioner alleges that, f ollowing th ese period s of punitive segregation, the DCR transfers him from the NCF to Mt. Olive where he is placed in administrative segregation i n a program called Quality of Life (“QOL”). According to M t. Olive Operational Procedure No. 324, the QOL program is “[a] behavior driven progressive incentive system consisting of four levels, which encourages appropriate behavior through behavior modification and programs participation and/or compliance.”

Pe titioner states that his first placement in the QOL program lasted over three years and that his second placement lasted for eighteen months. Petitioner alleges that his placements in the QOL program exacerbate his mental health conditions

, ma ke him more p rone to commit disciplinary violations , and ha ve caused him to be diagn osed with a new mental health condition,

post

- traumatic stress disorder.

In December of 2019, petitioner filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County pursuant to Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief against the DCR. 2 In petitioner’s complaint, he alleges that the DCR is deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk that long

- term administrative segregation poses to him and to other similarly situated prisoners.

Prior to the issuance of process, the circuit court evaluated the complaint pursuant to the West Virginia Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) , West Virginia Code §§ 25

- 1A

- 1 through

25

- 1A

- 8. On Januar y 28

, 2020, the circuit court dismissed the complaint with a terse order categorically finding that petitioner’s complaint was “ frivolous and/or malicious ” as defined in West Virginia Code § 25

- 1A

- 4(b). 3

Petitioner now appeals the circuit court’s January 28, 2020, order. “Appellate review of a

circuit court ’ s order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de novo .” Syl. Pt. 1, Roth v.
DeFeliceCare, Inc. , 226 W.Va. 214, 700 S.E.2d 183 (2010) (quoting Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel.

2 The private contractor that provides mental health services to DCR prisoners and various agents and employees of both the DCR and the contractor are listed as additional defendants in petitioner’s complaint, but they do not appear in this appeal.

3 West Virginia Code § 25

- 1A

- 4(b ) provides:

(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.3 McGraw v. Sc ott Runyan Pontiac

- Buick, Inc. , 194 W. Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995) ). We

addressed dismissals pursuant to the provisions of the PLRA in Ward v. Cliver

, 212 W. Va. 653

, 575 S.E.2d 263 (2002), and held that “[o] rders 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. ” Id. at 654, 575 S.E.2d at 264, syl. pt. 2.

On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court’s dismissal of his complaint should be reversed. The DCR counters that this Court cannot yet meaningfully review the dismissal of the complaint. As noted by the DCR, in Ward , this Court found that a virtu ally identical order failed to meet the standard for an adequate order, explaining that there was nothing more than “ a boilerplate reference to the statutory language .” Id. at 656, 575 S.E.2d at 266. 4 Accordingly, the DCR argues that the matter should be remanded to the circuit court with directions that it enter an order that complies with our holding in Syllabus Point 2 of Ward

. We agree. Therefore, we remand this case to the circuit court for the purpose of setting forth specific findings of fact and co nclusions of law sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

Remand ed with Directions

.

ISSUED: December 10, 2020

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead Justice Margaret L. Workman

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Evan H. Jenkins

Justice John A. Hutchison

4 Based on our review of the order in the instant case and the order at issue in Ward v.

Cliver

, 212 W. Va. 653

, 575 S.E.2d 263 (2002), we agree with the DCR that the two orders are strikingly similar.