STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

William Crawford, 

Plaintiff Below, Petitioner FILED 

vs) No. 15-0786 (Kanawha County 15-C-566) November 10, 2016 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Darrell Sigmon; Jeff Stinnett; Bobby Williams; OF WEST VIRGINIA 

and West Virginia Division of Corrections, 

an agency of the State of West Virginia; and 

West Virginia Department of Transportation, 

Division of Highways, an Agency of the 

State of West Virginia, 

Defendants Below, Respondents 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner William Crawford, by counsel John H. Skaggs, appeals the order of the Circuit 

Court of Kanawha County, entered July 20, 2015, that granted respondents’ Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion to dismiss petitioner’s action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under the Eight 

Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article III, § 5 of the West Virginia 

Constitution; and under the common law, for injuries he received while he was in the custody of 

the Department of Corrections and assigned to the Department of Transportation, Division of 

Highways, as a work-release inmate. Respondents Darrell Sigmon, Jeff Stinnett, Bobby 

Williams, the West Virginia Division of Corrections, and the West Virginia Department of 

Transportation, Division of Highways, by counsel Wendy E. Greve, filed a response. Petitioner 

filed a reply. 

This 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 Court finds no substantial 

question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming 

the circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

On November 27, 2012, petitioner, who was then a resident of the Charleston Work 

Release Center, signed a contract to serve as a work-release inmate pursuant to an agreement 

between Respondent West Virginia Department of Corrections and Respondent West Virginia 

Department of Transportation, Division of Highways. At that time, Respondent Jeff Stinnett was 

the director of the Charleston Work Release Center and Respondent Bobby Williams was the 

jobs coordinator at the Charleston Work Release Center. 

On March 28, 2013, petitioner was on a Division of Highways work-release crew tasked 

with clearing brush along Corridor G in Kanawha County. Respondent Darrell Sigmon, a 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Division of Highways employee, was the supervisor in charge of the work-release crew. At some 

point, petitioner opened a wood-chipper’s clogged discharge chute to clear debris. When 

petitioner placed a stick into the wood-chipper, the stick and petitioner’s hand were pulled in and 

some of petitioner’s fingers were amputated. 

On March 20, 2015, petitioner filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. In his 

complaint, petitioner claims that respondents were deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk 

of serious harm caused by the wood-chipper and thereby violated his constitutional rights by 

subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 

(1994) (stating that “[a] prison official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial risk of serious 

harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment”). In response, respondents filed an answer 

denying petitioner’s claims. Thereafter, respondents filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim for which relief 

could be granted. Following a June 17, 2015, hearing, the circuit court granted respondents’ 

motion by order entered July 20, 2015. Petitioner now appeals the circuit court’s order. 

“Appellate review of a circuit court’s order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de 

novo.” State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 773, 461 

S.E.2d 516, 519 (1995). Furthermore, “[f]or purposes of the motion to dismiss, the complaint is 

construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and its allegations are to be taken as true.” 

Lodge Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 161 W.Va. 603, 605, 245 S.E.2d 157, 158 (1978). “The 

plaintiff’s burden in resisting a motion to dismiss is a relatively light one, but he is required at a 

minimum to set forth sufficient information to outline the elements of his claim. If he fails to do 

so, dismissal is proper.” Price v. Halstead, 177 W.Va. 592, 594, 355 S.E.2d 380, 383 (1987) 

(citation omitted). 

On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the facts alleged in 

his complaint failed to support his claims against respondents and that he thereby failed to state a 

claim for relief. Having thoroughly reviewed petitioner’s complaint and the record on appeal in 

this matter, we find that the circuit court did not err in granting respondent’s Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion because petitioner’s complaint contains no specific allegation of wrongdoing by any of 

the five respondents; no allegations that any respondent committed any act of deliberate 

indifference; and no allegations that any respondent deprived petitioner of a constitutionally 

protected right. 

The general rules of pleading and the rules for stating claims for relief are provided by 

Rule 8 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Rule 8 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires clarity but not detail. Specifically, 

Rule 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief[.]” In addition, Rule 8(e)(1) states, in part, that “[e]ach 

averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” The primary purpose 

of these provisions is rooted in fair notice. Under Rule 8, a complaint must be 

intelligibly sufficient for a circuit court or an opposing party to understand 

whether a valid claim is alleged and, if so, what it is. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

McGraw, 194 W.Va. at 776, 461 S.E.2d at 522. Further, “despite the allowance in Rule 8(a) that 

the plaintiff’s statement of the claim be ‘short and plain,’ a plaintiff may not ‘fumble around 

searching for a meritorious claim within the elastic boundaries of a barebones complaint [,]’ see 

Chaveriat v. Williams Pipe Line Co., 11 F.3d 1420, 1430 (7th Cir. 1993)[.]” Id. 

With regard to the factual allegations in petitioner’s complaint, they are wholly 

insufficient to support his claims against respondents even when viewed in the light most 

favorable to petitioner and as true. First and foremost, the complaint alleges no specific 

wrongdoing by any respondent. Instead, petitioner makes only the generalized allegations that 

respondents “acted in willful disregard of the constitutional protected rights of [petitioner]” and 

that his injuries were “as a result of the wrongful conduct of [respondents], acting jointly and 

severally.” As for Respondent Jeff Stinnett and Respondent Bobby Williams, the only time they 

are mentioned in petitioner’s complaint is when their job titles are provided. With regard to 

Respondent Darrell Sigmon, petitioner pleads only that he was a Division of Highways employee 

and petitioner’s supervisor on the date of the accident. None of these “acts” are sufficient to 

support petitioner’s claims for relief. Further, although petitioner does allege that the Division of 

Highways operated the wood chipper in a manner inconsistent with its operation manual, he does 

not plead that any of the respondents directed him to open the wood chipper or to clear the chute. 

Additionally, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the plaintiff must show that 

the official who is alleged to have violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights was “subjectively 

aware of the risk.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 829. However, 

a prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying 

an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and 

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be 

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of 

serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. 

Id. at 837. In this regard, the circuit court found that petitioner’s complaint “does not set forth 

any requisite fact that would establish that the individual [respondents], or any of them, were 

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 

exists, and that [the respondent] actually drew such an inference.” We concur with the circuit 

court’s finding that petitioner failed to plead any such requisite facts. 

Consequently, we find that petitioner’s barebones complaint fails to satisfy the 

requirements of Rule 8(a)(2),1 and, therefore, conclude that the circuit court did not err in 

1 Petitioner also claims that the circuit court applied an improper and heightened standard 

in reviewing petitioner’s complaint. Given that we find that petitioner failed to meet the pleading 

standard set forth in Rule 8 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, we need not address 

this argument further. We remind petitioner that this Court “is not limited to the legal grounds 

relied upon by the circuit court, but it may affirm or reverse a decision on any independently 

sufficient ground that has adequate support.” Murphy v. Smallridge, 196 W.Va. 35, 36–37, 468 

S.E.2d 167, 168–69 (1996). Petitioner also raises other assignments of error which we need not 

reach given our conclusion that the circuit court did not err in dismissing petitioner’s complaint 

due to its failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dismissing petitioner’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s July 20, 2015, order 

dismissing petitioner’s action. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: November 10, 2016 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

DISSENTING: 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

4