Opinion ID: 1288836
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Case Number 32190 Randolph County Sexual Abuse Proceeding

Text: On or about August 8, 2000, Mr. White, who was then incarcerated at Huttonsville Correctional Center, [7] was allegedly beaten, while showering, by seven or eight other inmates and then raped and sodomized by approximately two or three of those inmates. Afterwards, Mr. White complained to prison officials about the incident and asked to be moved to a different dormitory within the prison because one of Mr. White's attackers was residing in the same dormitory in which he was then housed. He additionally complained in writing to each of the named respondents. [8] Approximately one month after he was attacked, Mr. White was moved to a different dormitory. [9] Thereafter, on July 22, 2002, Mr. White filed a civil action in the Circuit Court of Randolph County, naming Mr. Haines, Mr. Hainey, and Mr. Rubenstein respondents thereto, alleging that they had failed to protect him from the above-described attack; refused to promptly move him to a dormitory in which none of his attackers were housed; and otherwise failed to respond to his complaints about the incident in violation of the constitutional provisions prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment [10] and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [11] . The respondents collectively replied to Mr. White's complaint by moving to dismiss based upon Mr. White's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by W. Va.Code § 25-1A-2(a) [12] and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [13] . The circuit court reviewed the parties' arguments; considered the evidence submitted by Mr. White in support of his civil action; and entered its final order on December 12, 2003. Ruling in favor of the respondents, the circuit court found and concluded that, despite the language of W. Va.Code § 25-1A-2(c) permitting an inmate to file a civil action where past, current, or imminent sexual abuse has been alleged, Mr. White was nevertheless required to prove that he exhausted the administrative remedies provided by the Department of Corrections and that he has failed to do so. Rather than filing grievances on the forms specifically designated therefor, the court found that Mr. White's complaints [were] simply written in letter form. In addition, the letters included not just one complaint, but seemed to ramble on and reference several different issues. Accordingly, the court found that Mr. White had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies within the Department of Corrections and dismissed his action. Additionally, the circuit court concluded that Mr. White had not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. In this regard, the court found that [c]omplaints filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must specifically outline the individual actions committed by each defendant which supposedly violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Instead, however, the court determined that Mr. White had generally asserted that he was denied his statutory and constitutional rights . . . [and] that he was denied proper protection from harm, denied proper help from administration, harassed and retaliated against because of his grievance writing, suffered mental and physical trauma and was forced to suffer because of the negligence of the [respondents]. Finally, the court found that Mr. White's § 1983 action against the named respondents was improper insofar as neither they nor the State of West Virginia are a `person' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, the circuit court also found dismissal to be proper based upon Mr. White's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.