Jackson v. Hendrick

• Decision Date: 25 May 1982
• Citation: 498 Pa. 270,446 A.2d 226
• Parties: Gerald JACKSON, et al. v. Edward J. HENDRICK, et al. Application of Edward G. RENDELL, District Attorney of Philadelphia, Petitioner.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 226

446 A.2d 226 498 Pa. 270 Gerald JACKSON, et al.
v.
Edward J. HENDRICK, et al.
Application of Edward G. RENDELL, District Attorney of
Philadelphia, Petitioner. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued Jan. 19, 1982.
Decided May 25, 1982.

Page 227

[498 Pa. 272] Eric B. Henson, Deputy Dist. Atty., Kenneth S. Gallant, Asst. Dist. Atty., for petitioner.

John A. Beck, David Rudovsky, Donald S. Bronstein, Philadelphia, for plaintiffs.

John M. Myers, Asst. City Sol., Philadelphia, for defendants.

Before O'BRIEN, C. J., and ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT and HUTCHINSON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

Petitioner Edward G. Rendell, District Attorney of Philadelphia, seeks extraordinary relief from a decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia denying him leave to intervene in the matter of Jackson v. Hendrick, No. 2437 February Term, 1971, a decade-old controversy over the conditions of confinement at Philadelphia's prisons. We are satisfied that the court of common pleas did not abuse its discretion in holding that petitioner was dilatory in applying for intervention. Hence we deny the petition for extraordinary relief. ^*

[498 Pa. 273] I

Over ten years ago, in its initial adjudication declaring conditions of confinement at Philadelphia prisons unconstitutional, the court of common pleas observed:

"There can be no doubt that many of the difficulties in the prisons would be alleviated were the prisons not so overcrowded. The shortage of guards would become less critical; as the cells would not be so crowded, it might be possible by classification procedures to segregate dangerous prisoners, and to keep detentioners and sentenced prisoners apart; the doctors could spend more time on physical examinations, and could see more prisoners on sick call; the social workers could provide more counseling."

Opinion of April 7, 1972. ¹ Since then the court of common pleas has entered three remedial decrees designed to alleviate overcrowding, including its most recent decree of March 17, 1981. Like the previous decrees, the decree of March 17, 1981, established a mechanism for the review of the need for the continuing confinement of

Page 228

those persons awaiting trial (approximately 25% of the prison population) who were being held on the lowest amounts of bail. ²

The decree establishing the bail review mechanism specifically authorizes petitioner to object to the "projected release" of any pre-trial detainee by filing written objections. p 7(d). Where necessary, the court is to hold a hearing to resolve petitioner's objections. p 7(f). "Where the Court shall find that release of an individual after a hearing pursuant to paragraph 7(f) ... would create an immediate threat or danger of injury to the person, or bodily harm to [498 Pa. 274] himself or others, such individual shall not be released pursuant to this Order."

¶7(h). ³

Nothing in the decree affects the right of petitioner to obtain appellate review of the trial court's determination. Furthermore, as the court of common pleas has made clear, the review mechanism is a flexible device designed to complement other remedies such as the construction of additional detention facilities. ⁴

Petitioner sought leave to intervene on March 27, 1981, ten days after the entry of the court's remedial decree. His stated purpose was to seek "vacation and reconsideration" of the decree of March 17, 1981. Accompanying the application for intervention were the exceptions to the decree which petitioner had planned to file if granted his request. Petitioner appealed the denial of his application for intervention to the Commonwealth Court. ⁵

While his appeal to the Commonwealth Court was pending, petitioner filed an application with this Court for a stay of the decree of March 17, 1981, and for the assumption of plenary jurisdiction. By order dated July 7, 1981 (per Nix & Kauffman, JJ.), the March 17 decree was stayed in part, as follows:

"The following detentioners shall not be released absent the posting of bail previously set:

(a) any detentioner charged with the commission of, or attempted commission of, the following offenses: murder, rape, robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, arson, kidnapping, or any crime committed with a deadly weapon;

(b) any other detentioner, the release of whom has been found, in accordance with the procedure provided in paragraph (7) of the ... order of March 17, 1981 [(see supra [498 Pa. 275] text)], to create an imminent threat or danger of injury to the person, or bodily harm to himself or others, or presents a clear risk of failure to appear at scheduled court hearings." ⁶

This order was modified on December 16, 1981 (per Nix & Kauffman, JJ.), to exclude from the prohibition against release "[a]ny detentioner charged with the commission of, or attempted commission of, burglary committed without a deadly weapon ...." Petitioner's request for the assumption of plenary jurisdiction was heard by this Court on January 19, 1982.

II

Pa.R.Civ.Proc. 2329(3) permits a court to refuse an application for intervention if "the petitioner has unduly delayed in making application for intervention ...." Whether an application for intervention is timely is a question "singularly within the periphery of the trial judge's discretionary domain." Templeton Appeal, 399 Pa. 10,

Page 229

17, 159 A.2d 725, 730 (1960). See 8 Goodrich-Amram 2d § 2329:4 at p. 408 (1977) ("wide" discretion in trial court). "[U]nless there is a manifest abuse of such discretion, [the court's] exercise will not be interfered with on review." Darlington v. Reilly, 363 Pa. 72, 76, 69 A.2d 84, 86 (1949). Here, as there is no evidence of an abuse of discretion, the trial court's discretion may not be disturbed.

Petitioner asserts that his petition for intervention was timely because the court's remedial decree of March 17, 1981, worked a significant increase in the number of persons subject to possible release over the number subject to possible release under previous remedial decrees. However, the dispositive issue is not whether the March 17 decree worked an increase in the number of persons subject to possible release, but whether petitioner knew or should have known before entry of the decree of the possible remedies that the present litigation was likely to produce. If petitioner knew or should have known of the possible remedies at a time [498 Pa. 276] sufficiently prior to the entry of the decree to have provided petitioner an opportunity to intervene, then petitioner must provide a valid explanation for his having taken no action until March 27, 1981, after entry of the decree. Where, as here, there is no explanation for such delay, the application for intervention is properly denied. See Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 674 F.2d 970, 975 (3d Cir., 1982); Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Rizzo, 530 F.2d 501, 507 (3d Cir. 1976).

Throughout the ten-year history of the controversy over the conditions of confinement at Philadelphia's prisons, the scope of the court's remedial decrees aimed at correcting the overcrowding of Philadelphia's prisons has been directly proportional to the level of overcrowding. In June of 1976, when the court issued its first remedial decree specifically designed to maintain the prison population at an acceptable level (then approximately 1950 inmates), the court directed:

"Within ninety (90) days of the date of this Interim Decree I, the defendants shall develop and implement an administrative mechanism to maintain the population in the three institutions at no greater than the rated level. If the population exceeds this level, persons who are held in default of $1,500 bail or less, starting with those who have been detained for the longest period of time, shall be released on their own recognizance." ⁷

When in May of 1980 the court determined that the existing bail review mechanism was inadequate to deal with an increasing prison population, the court enlarged the scope of bail review to include (a) persons held for trial on misdemeanor offenses, (b) persons held in default of $3,000 bail or less, and (c) all others who, if released, would not pose undue danger to the community or undue risk of non-appearance. ⁸

The May 1980 decree specifically required that petitioner be given an opportunity to be heard on the release of any pre-trial detainee. In view of petitioner's acknowledged [498 Pa. 277] participation in these bail review proceedings, ⁹ petitioner must be charged with knowledge of the continuing, persistent problem of overcrowding which led ultimately to the now-challenged decree. We are, therefore, satisfied that petitioner had every reason to know well before entry of the decree of March 17, 1981, that the scope of the court's remedial relief would potentially expand.

Petitioner's reliance upon Ackerman v. North Huntingdon Township, 425 Pa. 194, 228 A.2d 667 (1967), is misplaced. There, this Court rejected a claim that intervenors had been dilatory in seeking leave to intervene after the entry of a court decree, within the time allowed for the filing of exceptions. However, critical to the result in Ackerman was the fact that the intervenors'

Page 230

interests had been adequately represented by a party-defendant throughout the litigation leading to the entry of the decree. ¹⁰ It was only upon the failure of the party-defendant to take exceptions to the decree that the adequacy of representation by the party-defendant deteriorated. Then "it behooved the [intervenors] to act and they acted without delay." 425 Pa. at 197, 228 A.2d at 668. Here, by contrast, petitioner seeks leave to intervene on the ground that his interest in the enforcement of the criminal laws was not adequately represented by the parties-defendant. Indeed, petitioner's argument in support of his claimed right to intervene pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.Proc. 2327 is predicated upon his...