Filed: Jan. 31, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 1997 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-31-1997 Death Row Prisoners v. Ridge Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 96-1991 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997 Recommended Citation "Death Row Prisoners v. Ridge" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 26. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/26 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United
Summary: Opinions of the United 1997 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-31-1997 Death Row Prisoners v. Ridge Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 96-1991 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997 Recommended Citation "Death Row Prisoners v. Ridge" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 26. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/26 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United ..
More
Opinions of the United
1997 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-31-1997
Death Row Prisoners v. Ridge
Precedential or Non-Precedential:
Docket 96-1991
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997
Recommended Citation
"Death Row Prisoners v. Ridge" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 26.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/26
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1997 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
______________________________
NO: 96-1991
______________________________
DEATH ROW PRISONERS OF PENNSYLVANIA, INCLUDING,
MICHAEL RAINEY; JAMES SMITH; TYRONE MOORE;
GEORGE EDWARDS; SCOTT BLYSTONE; ROLAND STEELE,
FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER PENNSYLVANIA DEATH
ROW PRISONERS WHO ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED
v.
THOMAS RIDGE, GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA;
THOMAS CORBETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; ROBERT N.C. NIX, JR.,
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT;
MARTIN HORN, COMMISSIONER OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
NANCY M. SOBOLEVITCH, COURT ADMINISTRATOR OF
PENNSYLVANIA AND OTHER EMPLOYEES AND
OFFICERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA WHOSE
IDENTITIES ARE PRESENTLY NOT KNOWN
Thomas Ridge, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
and Martin Horn, Secretary of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections, Appellants
____________________________
PRESENT: BECKER and ROTH, Circuit Judges and
BARRY, District Judge*
_________________
ORDER
_________________
1. This case was called for oral argument before the Court
on January 31, 1997;
*
The Honorable Maryanne Trump Barry, United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
2. The Court had previously opened the matter by letter to
counsel
dated
January
27, 1997,
a copy of
which is
attached
hereto, in
which was
recited
inter alia
the
following:
As you are all aware, plaintiffs in the above case complain
that they have been deprived of various constitutional
and statutory rights by reason of Pennsylvania’s
failure to declare whether it qualifies as an opt-in
state for purposes of the AEDPA statute of limitations.
While the procedural question presented by the briefs
on appeal primarily involves the application of
Eleventh Amendment immunity to the plaintiffs’ claim,
that matter pales by comparison with the imperative of
resolving the underlying issue, which is of enormous
importance to the administration of justice in the
federal courts in Pennsylvania. More specifically, it
is clear that the numerous and growing cadre of death
row inmates in Pennsylvania is entitled to a very
prompt answer to the question whether a 6 or 12 month
limitation period within which to file a habeas
petition governed by AEDPA applies.
This Court is, of course, prepared to address and resolve
the complicated Eleventh Amendment (and related)
questions before it. However, the panel can see no
reason why resolution of the critical opt-in question
should be delayed by the time it will take to do so,
or, for that matter, by the time it would take for the
district court to resolve it upon possible remand.
Simply stated (and to focus on one critical criterion),
Pennsylvania either has or it does not have at the
present time a rule of court or statute providing
standards of competency for the appointment of counsel
in death penalty cases.
Needless to say, if the matter cannot be resolved through an
appropriate declaration, the panel will proceed with
oral argument on the procedural issue presented by the
appeal. It intimates no view on the merits. It writes
only in an attempt to cut through a time consuming and
possibly expensive litigation, and in the hopes of
informing all interested parties without undue delay of
the time within which habeas petitions must be filed.
While that issue can certainly be adjudicated, it may
take many months, which seems highly undesirable if it
can be avoided.
3. The Court first addressed counsel for the plaintiff
class, who in response to the Court’s inquiry, stated that the
sole intent of the plaintiff class and of its counsel is in
obtaining a prompt declaration as to whether Pennsylvania meets
the criteria of § 2261 of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2261,(AEDPA), and not in obtaining
counsel fees. Counsel further stated that all counsel eligible
for fees waive any such claims;
4. The Court therefore declared that it views the pending
lawsuit as being solely a vehicle for resolution of that (§
2261)issue and not as importing or implying misconduct or
violation of civil rights by any named defendant or official of
Pennsylvania;
5. The Court also declared that, construing § 2261 of
AEDPA, it views the determination as to whether Pennsylvania
meets the criteria of § 2261 as one to be made by state-wide
authority, not admitting of county- by county- or case-by-case
determination;
6. The Commonwealth thereupon declared that Pennsylvania
does not meet the requirements of § 2261 as of January 31, 1997,
and that it has not met them previously;
7. After independent review, the Court declares that it
accepts the respective declarations of counsel as valid and
binding, and adopts them;
8. This appeal and the underlying action in the district
court is deemed resolved and terminated;
9. The Clerk is directed to publish this order in the
official publication of the Court.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Edward R. Becker
U.S. Circuit Judge
DATED: January 31, 1997