Kuren v. Luzerne Cnty. of Pa.

• Decision Date: 28 September 2016
• Docket Number: No. 58 MAP 2015,No. 57 MAP 2015,57 MAP 2015,58 MAP 2015
• Citation: 146 A.3d 715
• Parties: Adam Kuren and Steven Allabaugh, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants v. Luzerne County of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Robert C. Lawton, County Manager, in His Official Capacity, Appellees Adam Kuren and Steven Allabaugh, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants v. Luzerne County of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Robert C. Lawton, County Manager, in His Official Capacity, Appellees
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

146 A.3d 715

Adam Kuren and Steven Allabaugh, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants

v.Luzerne County of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Robert C. Lawton, County Manager, in His Official Capacity, Appellees

Adam Kuren and Steven Allabaugh, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants

v.Luzerne County of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Robert C. Lawton, County Manager, in His Official Capacity, Appellees

No. 57 MAP 2015

No. 58 MAP 2015

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ARGUED: April 6, 2016

DECIDED: September 28, 2016

Marrisa Boyers Bluestine, Esq., Temple University School of Law, Terence Martin Grugan, Esq., Ballard Spahr, LLP, for The Innocence Network & The PA Innocence Project, Amicus Curiae.

Paulette Brown, Esq., Edward W. Madeira Jr., Esq., Eli Mordecai Segal, Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP, for American Bar Association, Amicus Curiae.

Arleigh Pritchard Helfer III, Esq., Paul H. Titus, Esq., Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP, for National Assoc. of Criminal Defense Lawyers & PA Assoc. of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Amicus Curiae.

Nathaniel Pollock, Esq., for United States, Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, DC, Amicus Curiae.

Kimberly D. Borland, Esq., Borland & Borland, L.L.P., Vermon L. Francis, Esq., Sean Patrick McConnell, Esq., Katherine Elizabeth Unger, Esq., Michelle Hart Yeary, Esq., Dechert, LLP, Dina L. Hardy, Esq., Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Mary Catherine Roper, Esq., David Rudovsky, Esq., Kairys, Rudovski, Messing & Feinberg, Martha Meredith Tack–Hooper, Esq., ACLU of Pennsylvania, Witold J. Walczak, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of PA, for Adam Kuren, Steven Allabaugh, and all others similarly situated, Appellant.

James C. Crumlish III, Esq., Deborah Hart Simon, Esq., Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski, P.C., John G. Dean, Esq., for Luzerne County and Robert C. Lawton, Appellees.

SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE WECHT

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution safeguards some of our basic liberties. Among its protections is the guarantee that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ... have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S. Const., Amend VI. In the seminal case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the United States Supreme Court held that this bedrock right extended to state courts by application of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 372 U.S. 335, 342, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). Since Gideon, the Sixth Amendment has required not only federal courts but state courts as well to provide counsel to all those who are criminally accused but who cannot afford to pay for an attorney.

The Public Defender Act, 16 P.S. § 9960.3, requires each Pennsylvania county to maintain a public defender's office charged with fulfilling Gideon's dictates. These offices are chronically underfunded and understaffed, and are hard-pressed to meet the baseline demands of the Sixth Amendment, raising the disconcerting question of whether counties are complying with Gideon. In this case, the trial court stated that “[t]o describe the state of affairs in the Office of the Public Defender as approaching crisis stage is not an exaggeration.” Trial Court Opinion, 6/15/2012, at 16.

The question that we confront today is whether a cause of action exists entitling a class of indigent criminal defendants to allege prospective, systemic violations of the right to counsel due to underfunding, and to seek and obtain an injunction forcing a county to provide adequate funding to a public defender's office. Pursuant to Gideon and its progeny, and because remedies for Sixth Amendment violations need not await conviction and sentencing, we hold that such a cause of action exists, so long as the class action plaintiffs demonstrate “the likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury, and the inadequacy of remedies at law.” O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 502, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974).

I. Background¹

In May 2010, the Luzerne County Board of Commissioners appointed Al Flora, Jr., Esq., an attorney who served in the Luzerne County Office of Public Defender (“OPD”) for approximately thirty years, to be Chief Public Defender. When Flora assumed the Chief's position, the OPD already was riddled with problems stemming from understaffing and underfunding, deficiencies most prominently displayed at the time by the OPD's inability to represent juveniles facing delinquency petitions. A report prepared in the aftermath of the notorious “Kids for Cash”² scandal detailed the OPD's abject inability to represent accused juveniles, noting that approximately fifty percent of juveniles appearing in Luzerne County's Juvenile Court were unrepresented. Eventually, Flora was able to secure funding to create a Juvenile Unit within the OPD in order to reduce the office's deficiencies in representing juveniles. However, in order to staff this new unit, Flora had to transfer a senior attorney out of the OPD's Adult Unit. Although funding existed to replace the senior attorney in the Adult Unit, Luzerne County officials rebuffed Flora's request for authorization to fill the position, thus leaving the Adult Unit understaffed to tackle its increasing caseload.

In June 2010, Flora submitted a report to the Luzerne County Board of Commissioners regarding the state of the OPD. In the report, Flora outlined his belief that, for want of sufficient resources and funding, the OPD could not provide adequate representation to Luzerne County's indigent criminal defendants in a manner sufficient to satisfy the Public Defender Act, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.³ In his report, Flora noted that the lack of resources created rampant deficiencies in representation, including the following:

1. Caseloads for OPD attorneys exceeding national standards;

2. Insufficient support staff;

3. Insufficient number of attorneys due to Luzerne County's refusal to authorize hiring;

4. Lack of appellate attorneys, requiring trial attorneys untrained in appellate practice to litigate appeals;

5. Facilities unsuitable for confidential meetings with indigent defendants; and

6. Inadequate information technology.

Amended Complaint, 5/15/2013, at 12 ¶ 29. Flora informed the Commissioners that, without additional attorneys and support staff, “the [OPD] will begin declining applications for representation within 60 days.” Id.¶ 30.

In July 2010, Flora provided the Luzerne County Board of Commissioners with a short-term plan to address the deficiencies. The plan included recommendations to hire new appellate attorneys as well as additional trial attorneys, and to create and implement a caseload-monitoring system. The Board of Commissioners denied each recommendation. Then, in his 2011 and 2012 budget proposals, Flora sought the addition of two appellate attorneys, an investigator, and a secretary. On each occasion, the Board of Commissioners rejected Flora's requests.

In December 2011, Flora decided to implement his 2010 proposal to decline representation to certain applicants. Faced with mounting caseloads and overwhelmed attorneys, Flora directed the OPD to reject applicants who were not incarcerated and who were charged only with minor offenses. The OPD continued to refuse representation to such individuals until June 2012.

In January 2012, despite Flora's ongoing requests, Luzerne County decreased the OPD's funding by approximately 12%. The reduction would have required the OPD to eliminate four full-time positions from its already-strained staff. Flora was able to reallocate funds to retain those positions, but doing so significantly limited the OPD's ability to retain experts in some matters, including capital cases and complex juvenile proceedings.

In early 2012, a number of attorneys resigned from the OPD. Because Luzerne County implemented a hiring freeze in February of that year, Flora could not fill the positions. By April, the OPD staff consisted of only four full-time attorneys, thirteen part-time attorneys, three investigators, four secretaries, one receptionist, and one office administrator. The OPD continued to operate with five unfilled attorney positions, three full-time and two part-time. Most of the attorneys who worked for the OPD did not have their own desks, telephones, or computers. One part-time attorney informed Flora that he could not accept any more cases because, due to his current caseload, he could not satisfy his ethical duties to any additional defendants.

The cases continued to amass. Yet, despite Flora's efforts, no additional funding was forthcoming, and none appeared likely. Faced with no other option, and believing that the attorneys working for the OPD could not meet their ethical and professional obligations, Flora turned to the courts for relief.

On April 10, 2012, Flora, in his capacity as Chief Public Defender, along with plaintiffs Samantha Volciak, Yolanda Holman, Charles Hammonds (collectively, the “plaintiffs” or “original plaintiffs”), and on behalf of unnamed but similarly situated individuals, filed a class action lawsuit against Luzerne County and Robert Lawton, its County Manager (collectively, “Appellees”). Other than Flora, the plaintiffs identified themselves as persons charged with crimes in Luzerne County, each of whom qualified for the OPD's services. The OPD could not provide these plaintiffs with representation due to the inadequate funding and depleted resources plaguing the office. Flora and the other plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus compelling the county to lift the hiring freeze and to increase funding to the OPD to a level that would enable the OPD to provide adequate representation to every qualified applicant. Simultaneously, the plaintiffs brought a claim under the federal Civil Rights Act, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania...