1997 Decisions

Opinions of the United

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Precedential or Non-Precedential: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

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.

Recommended Citation

"Death Row Prisoners v. Ridge" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 26.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/26
 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