Opinion ID: 4563583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District Court on Remand

Text: The District Court held that Geness sufficiently pleaded a Title II and Fourteenth Amendment claim against AOPC and that AOPC’s sovereign immunity was validly abrogated (i.e., that Geness’s claim could proceed). It stated that “[a]t this preliminary stage and mindful Mr. Geness is not challenging judicial decision making but rather failures in court administration practices[,]” it would not dismiss his claim. Geness v. Commonwealth, 388 F. Supp. 3d 530, 534 (W.D. Pa. May 28, 2019). And it noted that discovery may help clarify “the potential liability and damages among allegedly responsible state actors [AOPC, DHS, and the Commonwealth].” Id. (“AOPC’s argument of no involvement, or the more central involvement of the Department of Human Services, is based on facts requiring discovery on relative culpability.”). 7 The law of the case doctrine instructs that “one panel of an appellate court generally will not reconsider questions that another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.” In re City of Phila. Litig., 158 F.3d 711, 717 (3d Cir. 1998). We are thus bound by our prior opinion to the extent it bears upon the matter before us. 13 In reaching this conclusion, the District Court found convincing Geness’s general allegation that “AOPC is responsible for ‘[e]nsuring accessible and safe courts for all citizens’ by ‘[e]nsuring that the courts of the Commonwealth comply with Title II.’” Id. at 534 (quoting Second Am. Compl. ¶ 7 (App. 36 ¶ 7)). It also noted the following more specific allegations from his Second Amended Complaint: Geness alleged that AOPC “makes regular inquiries of each county’s ADA coordinator with regard to cases involving criminal defendants who are pretrial detainees whose cases have not been called to trial in a timely fashion,” App. 45 ¶ 66, and that even though “AOPC repeatedly contacted the Fayette County court administrator directly to inquire about the Plaintiff’s case and the reasons for [his] extended incarceration without trial,” App. 45 ¶ 67, AOPC failed to take “any action designed to provide the Plaintiff with his right to be brought to trial on the charges that he faced,” App. 45 ¶ 67. Further, Geness alleged that the Fayette County Court administrator, who serves as the ADA coordinator for Fayette County, received a daily list of prisoners that showed their length of incarceration—and that his name appeared on this list. The District Court also focused on AOPC’s duties pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration. These rules task AOPC with (1) “review[ing] the operation and efficiency of the system and of all offices related to and serving the system and, when necessary . . . report[ing] to the Supreme Court or the Judicial Council with respect thereto,” (2) “examin[ing] the state of the dockets and practices and procedures of the courts and of the magisterial district judges and mak[ing] recommendations for the expedition of litigation,” and (3) “prepar[ing] educational and training materials for system and related personnel and to conduct 14 educational and training sessions.” Geness, 388 F. Supp. 3d at 534 (quoting Pa.R.J.A. Nos. 505(1), (6), (12) (alterations in original)). Considering all of this, the District Court concluded that “Mr. Geness plausibly pleads the AOPC could have helped him by exercising its duty to monitor the status of dockets and make recommendations to expedite litigation, ensure ADA compliance at a systemic level in the courts of the Commonwealth, and reporting to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.” Id. The District Court did not, however, explain how or at what point AOPC could or should have exercised these duties, given Geness’s acknowledgement that AOPC “repeatedly contacted the Fayette County Court administrator directly to inquire about the Plaintiff’s case and the reasons for the Plaintiff’s extended incarceration without trial,” App. 45 ¶ 67, and that Geness “is not challenging judicial decision making,” Geness, 388 F. Supp. 3d at 532. In summary, the District Court found that Geness had stated a viable Title II and Fourteenth Amendment claim because AOPC allegedly failed to take unspecified action to expedite his case and failed to take initiative to report the status of his case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The District Court thus concluded that it could not rule out AOPC’s Title II and Fourteenth Amendment liability as a matter of law and that AOPC therefore was not immune from suit.8 8 The District Court also addressed whether AOPC possessed quasi-judicial immunity and found that it did not. Id. at 536–38. AOPC does not appeal this ruling. 15