Death Row Prisoners of Pennsylvania v. Ridge, 96-1991
| Decision Date | 31 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1991,96-1991 |
| Parties | 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. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Present: BECKER and ROTH, Circuit Judges and BARRY, District Judge. *
Prior report: 948 F.Supp. 1282.
1. This case was called for oral argument before the Court on January 31, 1997;
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Vaughn, Civil Action No. 95-7977.
...post-conviction proceedings. The Third Circuit has held that Pennsylvania is not an "opt-in" state. See Death Row Prisoners of Pennsylvania v. Ridge, 106 F.3d 35 (3d Cir.1997). As such, capital habeas petitions in Pennsylvania are governed by the default provisions of § 2254. The Court conc......
-
Holland v. Horn
... ... Martin HORN, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Philip L. Johnson, ... of relief from his state murder conviction and death sentence ... Page 713 ... under the Anti-Terrorism and ... certain circumstances, a writ of habeas corpus to prisoners convicted in state court. Petitioner filed his Petition for ... See Death Row Prisoners of Pennsylvania v. Ridge, 106 F.3d 35, 36 (3d Cir.1997) ... 15. Because we find ... ...
-
Holloway v. Horn, CIVIL ACTION No. 00-CV-1757, CAPITAL CASE (E.D. Pa. 8/27/2001)
...we therefore continue to apply the traditional cause and prejudice analysis in Petitioner's case. See Death Row Prisoners of Pennsylvania v. Ridge, 106 F.3d 35, 36 (3d Cir. 1997). 12. As mentioned above, Petitioner fairly presented claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate cou......
-
Buehl v. Vaughn
...amendments to Chapter 153 of Title 28 generally apply only to cases filed after the AEDPA became effective); Death Row Prisoners of Pennsylvania v. Ridge, 106 F.3d 35 (3d Cir.1997) (concluding that Pennsylvania is not an "opt-in" state for purposes of the AEDPA and that therefore the AEDPA'......