Adderly v. Wainwright
| Decision Date | 09 August 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 67-298-Civ-J.,67-298-Civ-J. |
| Citation | 272 F. Supp. 530 |
| Parties | John Alfred ADDERLY, John Henry Roberts, Joseph Montgomery, James E. Collins, Thomas Allen, Henry J. Carswell, and all other persons similarly situated, Petitioners, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Anthony G. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Pa., Tobias Simon, American Civil Liberties Union, Miami, Fla., for petitioners.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., David U. Tumin, Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for respondent.
On April 13, 1967, this Court issued an Order for Hearing and Stay of Execution based upon a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of Petitioners and all other persons similarly situated. Because of the complex and unique procedural questions raised as to the propriety of a joint petition and a class action in a habeas corpus proceeding, a preliminary hearing was held on July 27, 1967.
The questions considered at that hearing, to which the parties had previously addressed memoranda at the Court's request, were (1) whether the "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Other Appropriate Relief" may be entertained as a joint petition on behalf of the six named Petitioners; (2) whether it may also be entertained as a class action on behalf of all persons similarly situated; (3) if it may be entertained as a class action, how the class is to be defined, whether and what subclasses should be recognized, and how the representational or class aspect of the action should be implemented; and (4) whether this action requires the convening of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281 (1964).
Respondent has taken the position that, as a matter of law, this Court is without power under any circumstances to entertain a joint petition for habeas corpus or a class-action habeas corpus proceeding. His position is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in habeas corpus matters, and that the governing statutes and principles of common-law habeas corpus practice disallow the entertaining of joint or class petitions for the writ, no matter what the factual circumstances. (Respondent concedes that a joint petition might be proper in the case of jointly tried state convicts, but that concession does not significantly affect the issue now before this Court.) At the close of the hearing, Respondent moved orally to dismiss the Petition for misjoinder and because it is not a proper class action.
Petitioners, on the other hand, contend that under the factual circumstances of this case both joinder and the maintenance of a class action are appropriate. They assert (1) that Fed.R.Civ. P. 20 and 23 give this Court discretion to entertain a joint or class habeas corpus petition in an appropriate case; and (2) that, apart from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court has inherent power, in the regulation of its own procedures in the exercise of its habeas corpus jurisdiction, to entertain a joint or class habeas corpus petition in an appropriate case. Petitioners urge that this case is an appropriate one for a joint or class action because those forms of action are the indispensable condition of protecting the substantive rights of the unrepresented indigent prisoners at Raiford Prison who could not come before any court in any other form of proceeding. Counsel for Petitioners have not urged that the Court make a definitive ruling on the question of the propriety of a joint or class action at this time. They ask that, as a factual basis for the determination of whether a joint or class action will be entertained, the Court allow the interviewing of all inmates of death row, in order to determine the existence, nature and status of pending legal proceedings involving each, and the posture of each with regard to representation by counsel. These factual enquiries would relate to the question of whether, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b) (3) "a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c) (1) provides:
(1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a class action, the court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained. An order under this subdivision may be conditional, and may be altered or amended before the decision on the merits.
This would seem to be a preliminary procedure equally appropriate to the determination of whether the Court will entertain a class-action habeas corpus petition in the exercise of its inherent power over habeas corpus matters.
On the question of whether the present case is one required to be heard by a three-judge court, the parties are agreed and the Court concurs that, so long as nothing more is involved than the exercise by the Court of its habeas corpus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2254 (1964), a three-judge court is not required. Counsel for Petitioners have taken the position that only if the Court should determine that the Court cannot entertain the Petition in its joint and class form as one for a writ of habeas corpus, will Petitioners ask such equitable relief by injunction as might require the convening of a court of three judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284 (1964).
Upon careful consideration of the Petition, briefs and arguments herein, the Court concludes:
(a) The Court cannot now say that a joint or class action for a writ of habeas corpus could never, under any circumstances, be entertained.
(b) The factual record before this Court at this time is inadequate to support a considered decision as to whether the present case is or is not one in which a joint or class action may properly be entertained.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger
...Habeas Corpus, 81 Harv.L.Rev. 1482, 1494 (1968); Wildenhus's Case, 120 U.S. 1, 7 S.Ct. 385, 30 L.Ed. 565 (1887); Adderly v. Wainwright, 272 F.Supp. 530 (M.D.Fla.1967). See Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 294--295 n.5, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969). We think under the unique circumsta......
-
Sands v. Wainwright
...in this case which are properly before this Court with relation exclusively to the "death-row" inmates. See generally Adderly v. Wainwright, 272 F.Supp. 530 (M.D.Fla.1967); Adderly v. Wainwright, 58 F.R.D. 389 15 TT at 19. 16 TT at 20. In administrative segregation the inmates have the same......
-
Harris v. Nelson, 199
...See Mitchell v. Schoonfield, 285 F.Supp. 728 (D.C.Md.1968); Hill v. Nelson, 272 F.Supp. 790 (D.C.N.D.Calif.1967); Adderly v. Wainwright, 272 F.Supp. 530 (D.C.M.D.Fla.1967). Cf. Note, Multiparty Federal Habeas Corpus, 81 Harv.L.Rev. 1482 (1968). The only issue before the Court in this case i......
-
Williams v. Richardson, 72-1534.
...permitted six prisoners to bring a habeas corpus class action on behalf of all similarly situated prisoners in Florida. Adderly v. Wainwright, 46 F.R.D. 97 (M.D.Fla.1968). The class action procedure may very well represent the most appropriate manner of litigating the general claims alleged......