Chadwick v. Janecka, CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-1130 (E.D. Pa. 1/3/2002)
| Decision Date | 03 January 2002 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-1130. |
| Parties | H. BEATTY CHADWICK, v. JAMES JANECKA. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Petitioner H. Beatty Chadwick, Esq.1 ("Chadwick"), filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenges his continued incarceration for civil contempt. In his petition, Chadwick argues that his imprisonment is impermissibly punitive and he has been denied due process because: (1) he was and is unable to comply with a state court order of which he has been adjudged contemptuous; (2) he was denied a jury trial and other procedural rights; (3) he was imprisoned after a summary proceeding; (4) his imprisonment has become punitive; (5) he was imprisoned for failure to pay money; (6) his civil imprisonment is indefinite; (7) the imprisonment order is facially unlawful; (8) the state court ordering the incarceration lacked jurisdiction; and (9) he was denied a prompt appeal.
United States Magistrate Judge Arnold C. Rapoport issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") to deny and dismiss the petition without an evidentiary hearing and find no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability. Petitioner filed objections and Barbara Jean Crowther Chadwick ("Ms. Chadwick"), petitioner's estranged wife and the Intervenor in this action, filed a motion to dismiss Chadwick's petition. For the reasons stated herein, the motion to dismiss will be denied and after de novo consideration of Chadwick's petition, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be granted.
Ms. Chadwick filed a divorce action in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas in November, 1992. During an equitable distribution conference in February, 1993, Chadwick informed the state court and Ms. Chadwick he had transferred $2,502,000 of the marital estate to satisfy an alleged debt to Maison Blanche, Ltd. ("Maison Blanche"), a Gibraltar partnership. See Chadwick v. Chadwick, No. 1555 Philadelphia 1995 at 2 (Pa.Super.Ct. Aug. 22, 1996) ("Chadwick I"). Ms. Chadwick had no knowledge of any debt owed by Chadwick to Maison Blanche.
After hiring a private investigator and further discovery, Ms. Chadwick determined: (1) one of the principals of Maison Blanche returned $869,106.00 from Gibraltar to an American bank account in Chadwick's name, and the funds were used to purchase three annuity contracts; (2) $995,726.41 had been transferred to a Union Bank account in Switzerland in Chadwick's name; and (3) $550,000.00 in stock certificates Chadwick claimed he had transferred to an unknown barrister in England to forward to Maison Blanche were never received. Id. at 3; Chadwick v. Hill, No. 2192 Philadelphia 1996 at 2 n. 1 (Pa.Super.Ct. Apr. 23, 1997) ("Chadwick II"). The state court entered a freeze order on the marital assets on April 29, 1994.
In May, 1994, Chadwick redeemed the annuity contracts and deposited the funds in a Panamanian bank. See Chadwick II, at 2 n. 1. On July 22, 1994, the state court held a hearing at which Chadwick and his counsel were present. After hearing testimony regarding disposition of the $2,502,000.00 sent to Gibraltar, the court determined Chadwick's transfer of the money was an attempt to defraud Ms. Chadwick and the court. On the day of the hearing, the court ordered Chadwick to return the $2,502,000.00 to an account under the jurisdiction of the court, pay $75,000.00 for Ms. Chadwick's attorney's fees and costs, surrender his passport and remain within the jurisdiction. See id. at 3.
Chadwick refused to comply with the July 22, 1994 order; Ms. Chadwick filed a petition for contempt. The state court held contempt hearings on August 29, 1994, October 18, 1994, and October 31, 1994. Chadwick failed to appear at any of the hearings, but his attorney was present. See id. The state court found Chadwick in contempt of the July 22, 1994 order and issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
Chadwick, learning a bench warrant had been issued, fled the jurisdiction but was arrested and detained on April 5, 1995. The state court then determined Chadwick had the present ability to comply with the terms of the July 22, 1994 order and set bail at $3,000,000.00. See Chadwick I, at 4. Chadwick could have been released from custody at any time either by posting bail or purging his contempt by compliance with the July 22, 1994 order to deposit $2,502,000.00 in the court's account; to date, he has done neither.
On April 7, 1995, Chadwick filed in federal court an emergency motion to quash the state court bench warrant and release him from Delaware County Prison because the contempt finding was improper under state law. This court declined to intervene in a pending state court proceeding under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) and progeny. See Chadwick v. Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, No. 95-0103, 1995 WL 232500, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Apr. 19, 1995).
Chadwick has filed six state petitions for habeas relief; the trial court denied them all. He appealed one denial and his latest denial was subject to appeal, but before the appeals were decided, Chadwick filed a second federal habeas petition; this court dismissed the second federal habeas petition for failure to exhaust available state remedies because the issues had not yet been presented to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See Chadwick v. Hill, No. 95-0103, 1995 WL 541794, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 8, 1995).
Several appeals of state trial court denials of his habeas petitions and a motion to vacate state court orders were consolidated on appeal. The Pennsylvania Superior Court, affirming the lower court decisions in August, 1996, found that he was able to comply with the July, 1994 Order. See Chadwick I. The Superior Court held that: (1) the trial court had jurisdiction to find Chadwick in contempt; (2) the procedure used by the trial court in the contempt proceedings was not improper; (3) the trial court did not err in adjudicating Chadwick in contempt; (4) state statutory provisions governing criminal contempt were inapplicable; (5) Chadwick was not illegally incarcerated; and (6) Chadwick's incarceration had not ceased to be coercive in nature. Id. Chadwick's petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was denied on April 8, 1997.
Chadwick's sixth petition for state habeas relief argued that his continued confinement deprived him of due process because it had become punitive rather than coercive; it was denied by the trial court on June 21, 1996. While appealing that determination, Chadwick filed a third federal habeas petition on September 23, 1996. By Memorandum and Order dated January 16, 1997, this court dismissed Chadwick's third federal habeas petition for failure to exhaust available state remedies and abstained because of the pending appeal to the Superior Court. See Chadwick v. Hill, No. 96-6426, 1997 WL 22406, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 16, 1997).
The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Chadwick's sixth state habeas petition by Opinion dated April 23, 1997. See Chadwick II. The court encouraged the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to review its decision to clarify the point at which a coercive penalty for civil contempt becomes a criminal sanction requiring due process under federal and state law. See id. at 6 ().
Chadwick did not seek review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but instead sought reconsideration of this court's January 16, 1997 decision dismissing his federal habeas petition for non-exhaustion of state remedies. This court, finding the Superior Court specifically "invited" the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review its decision and that Chadwick had not yet presented his due process claims to the Supreme Court for review, denied Chadwick's motion for reconsideration on May 23, 1997. The court held that "the question of when civil contempt becomes punitive is one which a federal court should abstain from considering before the state supreme court has had the opportunity." May 23, 1997 Order at ¶ 10.
Chadwick declined to seek Supreme Court review of the Superior Court's April 23, 1997 decision. Instead, Chadwick filed his fourth federal habeas petition on July 18, 1997. He argued his continued detention in the Delaware County Prison served only a punitive purpose so that he was no longer imprisoned for civil contempt and must be afforded the protections and procedures obligatory for criminal sanctions. That petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust available state remedies on April 30, 1998. See Chadwick v. Andrews, No. 97-4680, 1998 WL 218026 (E.D.Pa. Apr. 30, 1998).
In September, 1999, Chadwick, filing a pro se Application for Leave to File Original Process (his seventh state habeas petition) with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, asserted, inter alia, that he had been denied due process of law and his continued incarceration had ceased to be coercive but was punitive. This request was granted on February 8, 2000; the petition for habeas corpus was summarily denied on the same date. Chadwick had also filed a petition for release in the Delaware Court of Common Pleas on the ground that he was suffering from "major psychological depression," and unable to participate in his divorce proceedings. After a hearing, on September 22, 1999, the state court trial judge was "convinced that Mr. Chadwick is feigning mental illness in an effort to be released from prison without returning the $2,500,000 which he transferred out of this country." Chadwick v. Chadwick, No. 92-19535, slip op. at 4 (Ct. Com. Pl., Del. Cty., Pa. Sept. 22, 1999).
On March 2, 2000, Chadwick filed this, his fifth federal habeas petition. On December 8, 2000, Judge Rapoport issued an R & R to which Chadwick filed timely objections.
On April 4, 2001, Chadwick filed his eighth state court habeas petition. A hearing on the petition was held on April 11, 2001, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial