Opinion ID: 1228174
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: .Prisoner plaintiffs

Text: Having concluded that the organizational and voter/taxpayer plaintiffs may not maintain this action, we next look to the last category of plaintiffs  the prisoner plaintiffs  who seek our decision on the constitutional claims asserted. With respect to the three prisoner plaintiffs, the complaint contains the following allegations: 10. Plaintiff, Roger Buehl, AM-7936, was, at the time this case was filed, a death-sentenced prisoner convicted and sentenced prior to November 4, 1997. He was among approximately two hundred twenty (220) death sentenced individuals in Pennsylvania who may seek relief through the Pardons Board. 11. Plaintiff Vincent Johnson, AF-3422, SCI-Camp Hill, is a life-sentenced prisoner who was convicted on August 7, 1993, of aggravated robbery and murder in the first degree for a murder committed on or about November 5, 1971. He has filed application[s] with the Board of Pardons on the following dates: April 2, 1991; April 27, 1992; October 24, 1994; and May 23, 1997. His latest application was denied in 1998 by a 2-3 vote. 12. Plaintiff Douglas Hollis, AF-6355, is a life-sentenced prisoner currently incarcerated at SCI-Coal Township. Prior to the 1997 Amendments, he filed an application to the Board of Pardons and received approval of his commutation by a 4-1 vote of the Board, but was rejected by Governor Robert Casey. He subsequently filed another application to the Pardons Board, which was denied. A94. Crucially, the record contains no evidence that any of these prisoner plaintiffs have received or may expect to receive a majority vote (i.e., 3-2 or 4-1) of the Board of Pardons after the 1997 Amendments. Such allegations (on a motion to dismiss) or a showing by affidavit or other evidence (on a motion for summary judgment) of a 3-2 or 4-1 vote of the Board could demonstrate that a plaintiff was injured by the 1997 Amendments. [12] The complaint does not allege and the record contains no evidence that any of these prisoner plaintiffs has had any actual injury or presently has an application pending before the Board of Pardons. Nor does the complaint allege or the record evidence show that any of the prisoner plaintiffs has immediate plans to file such an application. Nor is there any record evidence to suggest that these specific prisoner plaintiffs, even should they apply, are likely to have received a recommendation for commutation under the pre-1997 regime, for ultimate decision by the Governor. The only allegation concerning these prisoner plaintiffs' commutation prospects is the very general prediction that [s]aid plaintiffs will, in the future, apply for executive clemency through the Board. A101. Prisoner plaintiffs have failed for two reasons to demonstrate that they have suffered an injury in fact  the first of the irreducible triad of Article III standing requirements. To constitute injury in fact, harm to the plaintiff must be an invasion of a legally protected interest that is distinct and palpable, as opposed to merely abstract and . . . actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted and emphasis added). Here, prisoner plaintiffs have not demonstrated (1) actual or imminent harm because they failed to allege or adduce evidence of any concrete plans to apply for a commutation in the immediate future; nor (2) distinct and palpable injury because they have not shown that, even if they do apply to the Board of Pardons, they are sufficiently likely to be personally harmed by the changed voting requirement in the 1997 Amendments  i.e., that they are likely to receive a majority of votes favoring a commutation recommendation from the Board. In Defenders of Wildlife, the Court considered a challenge to a revision of a federal regulation providing that the Endangered Species Act does not apply to United States government activities overseas. Two plaintiffs had submitted detailed affidavits describing their viewing of endangered animals on past trips abroad, and stated their inten[tion] to return . . . in the future. Id. at 563, 112 S.Ct. 2130. The Court held that such indefinite future plans were insufficient to establish injury in fact: [T]he affiants' profession of an intent to return to the places they had visited before  where they will presumably, this time, be deprived of the opportunity to observe animals of the endangered species  is simply not enough. Such some day intentions  without any description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specification of when the some day will be  do not support a finding of the actual or imminent injury that our cases require. Id. at 564, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (emphasis added). The Court took issue with the dissent's view that it would be sufficient for the plaintiffs to show that they would  soon return to the project sites, id., on the grounds that it would eviscerate the imminence requirement: Although imminence is concededly a somewhat elastic concept, it cannot be stretched beyond its purpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III purposes  that the injury is certainly impending. It has been stretched beyond the breaking point when . . . the plaintiff alleges only an injury at some indefinite future time, and the acts necessary to make the injury happen are at least partly within the plaintiff's own control. In such circumstances we have insisted that the injury proceed with a high degree of immediacy, so as to reduce the possibility of deciding a case in which no injury would have occurred at all. Id. at 564 n. 2, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (internal citations omitted and emphasis added). Here, as in Defenders of Wildlife, prisoner plaintiffs offer only the most vague non-concrete some day intentions that they will, in the future, apply for executive clemency. A101. Such allegations of injury at some indefinite future time  where the acts necessary to make the injury happen are within the prisoner plaintiffs' own control  lack the high degree of immediacy required to constitute injury in fact and provide Article III standing. Id. at 564 n. 2, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Even if prisoner plaintiffs had alleged and sufficiently introduced evidence that they had imminent plans to file an application for a commutation, they would still fail to demonstrate injury in fact because they have not shown a sufficient likelihood that they personally would be harmed by the change in voting requirements wrought by the 1997 Amendments. The relevant precedent is the seminal Supreme Court case of City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). Lyons involved a suit to enjoin as unconstitutional a policy of the Los Angeles Police Department permitting the use of chokeholds in instances where the police were not threatened with death or serious bodily injury. Though Lyons could seek damages for his injuries as a result of the alleged policy, the Court held that he had no standing to seek injunctive relief because he could not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood that he, personally, would be choked again in the future: Lyons' standing to seek the injunction requested depended on whether he was likely to suffer future injury from the use of the chokeholds by police officers. Id. at 105, 103 S.Ct. 1660. The Court elaborated that: Absent a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a similar way, Lyons is no more entitled to an injunction than any other citizen of Los Angeles; and a federal court may not entertain a claim by any or all citizens who no more than assert that certain practices of law enforcement officers are unconstitutional. Id. at 111, 103 S.Ct. 1660; see also Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 564, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (expressly applying Lyons to uphold dismissal of a complaint on the basis of plaintiff's failure to show that he will soon expose himself to the injury). In addition to their failure to allege any plan to apply for a commutation in the near future, prisoner plaintiffs have offered no evidence that they personally are likely to be injured by the 1997 Amendments. The record is bare of any information about prisoner plaintiffs' backgrounds, and thus whether they would be good, i.e., likely, candidates for commutation. [13] Prisoner plaintiffs would only be injured by the 1997 Amendments if they received a majority (but less than unanimous vote) by the Board in favor of commutation. Less than a majority would have been insufficient even under the pre-1997 regime. Thus, to show a likelihood of injury, prisoner plaintiffs must offer facts showing that they likely would have received a majority vote in favor of recommendation. But they have not offered any evidence in this regard. None of the prisoner plaintiffs can establish a concrete and particularized injury without having obtained at least three votes in the Board  which would have been sufficient for its recommendation of commutation of sentence before the 1997 Amendments but are insufficient under the current provisions. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 210, 115 S.Ct. 2097, 132 L.Ed.2d 158 (1995) (quoting Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130). The Adarand Court found standing for a subcontractor challenging the constitutionality of a federal program because the subcontractor had actually been denied a contract under the challenged rules and had shown during discovery that it was very likely to bid in the relatively near future on another contract under the same provisions. 515 U.S. at 210, 212, 115 S.Ct. 2097. Given that it was denied a contract, the subcontractor unquestionably had standing to seek damages. Id. at 210, 115 S.Ct. 2097. Moreover, it had standing to seek forward-looking declaratory and injunctive relief against any future use of the challenged rules because its alleged injury was concrete and particularized   discriminatory classification prevent[ing] the plaintiff from competing on an equal footing, id. at 211, 115 S.Ct. 2097 (emphasis added) [14]  and imminent  its general management testified in deposition that the company has bid on every government project, which were open for bidding at least once a year. Id. at 211-12, 115 S.Ct. 2097. Thus, the Court concluded, [b]ecause the evidence in this case indicates that the [government] is likely to let contracts . . . that contain [the challenged] compensation clause at least once per year in Colorado, that [the subcontractor] is very likely to bid on each such contract, and that [it] often must compete for such contracts against small disadvantaged businesses, we are satisfied that [it] has standing to bring this lawsuit. Id. at 212, 115 S.Ct. 2097. In contrast to Adarand, the prisoner plaintiffs here have not established any concrete and particularized injury, since they did not and would not have obtained a recommendation of the Board of Pardons even under the pre-1997 Amendments majority voting requirement. Additionally, the prisoner plaintiffs cannot claim any form of stigma associated with applying under the amended Pennsylvania Constitution. In short, they have not shown any injury. Plaintiffs argue that standing requirements should be relaxed here because they bring a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the 1997 Amendments. The record does contain evidence, offered by the parties on the merits of the Ex Post Facto claim, showing that the absolute number of Board of Pardon recommendations for commutations has decreased since 1997 when the unanimity requirement took effect. However, this decrease had begun already in 1995, long before the amendments went into effect. [15] Thus, this evidence fails the causation element of standing. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Moreover, even if the statistical evidence actually showed a decreased probability of receiving a recommendation caused by the 1997 Amendments  an inference disputed by defendants  the prisoner plaintiffs would lack standing because they must show that particularized injury that applies to them personally. As the Supreme Court noted in Lyons: Of course, it may be that among the countless encounters between the police and the citizens of a great city such as Los Angeles, there will be certain instances in which strangleholds will be illegally applied and injury and death unconstitutionally inflicted on the victim. . . . [But] it is surely no more than speculation to assert either that Lyons himself will again be involved in one of those unfortunate instances, or that he will be arrested in the future and provoke the use of a chokehold by resisting arrest, attempting to escape, or threatening deadly force or serious bodily injury. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 108, 103 S.Ct. 1660. None of the cases cited by plaintiffs support a general proposition that facial challenges to the validity of a statute need not satisfy the Article III requirements for standing. The cited cases arise in the highly exceptional First Amendment context. See Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 750, 756, 108 S.Ct. 2138, 100 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988) ( In the area of freedom of expression it is well established that one has standing to challenge a statute on the ground that it delegates overly broad licensing discretion . . .) (citing Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 56, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965)) (emphasis added); Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974) (upholding facial First Amendment challenge to criminal trespass statute prohibiting distribution of political handbills); Peachlum v. City of York, 333 F.3d 429, 435 (3d Cir.2003) ( A First Amendment claim, particularly a facial challenge, is subject to a relaxed ripeness standard. . . . The courts have repeatedly shown solicitude for First Amendment claims because of concern that, even in the absence of a fully concrete dispute, unconstitutional statutes or ordinances tend to chill protected expression among those who forbear speaking because of the law's very existence.) (internal citations omitted and emphasis added); Presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church v. Florio, 40 F.3d 1454, 1458 (3d Cir.1994) (finding ripe plaintiffs' First Amendment challenge to state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation). The relaxed standing requirement in these cases apply solely in the First Amendment context, and therefore has no application to the commutation procedures here at issue. One of the least compelling arguments the prisoner plaintiffs assert is that  despite the absence of a pending or soon to be filed commutation application, or the likelihood that any plaintiff's application would be denied as a result of the 1997 Amendments  they have sustained a cognizable injury under Article III because they are thereby discouraged from even attempting to apply for a commutation. See Howard v. New Jersey Dep't of Civil Service, 667 F.2d 1099, 1103 (3d Cir.1981) (Threatened injury can constitute injury-in-fact where the threat is so great that it discourages the threatened party from even attempting to exercise his or her rights.) (citing International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 365-66, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977)). Similarly, plaintiffs argue that the passage of the Amendments has effectively put out a `Do Not Apply' message to death and life sentenced inmates. Pl. Br. at 11. This argument is without merit, since plaintiff Johnson and other prisoners not parties to this case [16] have applied for commutations after the 1997 Amendments went into effect and would have standing upon obtaining three votes in their favor. Moreover, certain prisoners, such as plaintiff Buehl, may prefer to seek relief from their sentences under other options provided by the legal system, such as motions for resentencing or writs of habeas corpus.