Santiago v. City of Philadelphia

• Decision Date: 20 July 1977
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 74-2589.
• Citation: 435 F. Supp. 136
• Parties: Neida SANTIAGO et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

435 F. Supp. 136

Neida SANTIAGO et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 74-2589.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

July 20, 1977.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jonathan M. Stein, Jack J. Levine, Alex J. Palamarchuk, Ellen Josephson, Janet F. Stotland, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Joseph R. Lally, Agostino Cammisa, Alan H. Gilbert, M. Faith Angell, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

OPINION

JOSEPH S. LORD, III, Chief Judge.

This civil rights action is brought by juvenile-residents of the Youth Study Center ("YSC"), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who challenge the conditions of confinement and treatment at YSC and seek injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. In a previous opinion, Santiago v. City of Philadelphia, 72 F.R.D. 619 (E.D.Pa.1976) hereinafter Santiago I, we granted plaintiffs' motion for class action certification as it applies to injunctive and declaratory relief.¹ Defendants have moved to dismiss the action on several grounds. We will grant their motion in part and deny it in part.

Plaintiffs' allegations of constitutional deprivations and state statutory violations can be divided into six categories: (1) unconstitutional corporal punishment and solitary confinement; (2) general institutional conditions which violate constitutional and statutory standards (e. g., inadequate living space, heating, lighting); (3) improper institutional restraints and suppression of liberties (e. g., limitations concerning mail, visitation, recreation, clothing and medical care); (4) denial of adequate educational and rehabilitative services; (5) racial segregation at YSC resulting from discriminatory placement of juveniles; and (6) failure to utilize the least restrictive alternative in confining juveniles. Plaintiffs maintain these practices are actionable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3), 1986, 1988, 1994 and 2000d; the first, fourth, fifth, eighth, thirteenth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution; and the statutory and common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Named as defendants are: the City of Philadelphia, Mayor Frank Rizzo, Hillel Levinson (Managing Director of Philadelphia), judges of the Family Court Division of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, administrators and personnel of YSC, the Philadelphia School District and officials of both the Philadelphia School District and Pennsylvania State Department of Education. Defendants are sued for overt acts committed in furtherance of the aforementioned practices and/or their acquiescence in and toleration of the same. In addition, liability for some defendants has been based upon a respondeat superior theory.

The defendants'² motion to dismiss alleges that: (a) the complaint fails to meet the requirements of case or controversy; (b) this court should abstain from a decision on the merits; (c) the Family Court judges and Judge Montemuro are immune from suit; (d) certain defendants should be granted "quasi-judicial" immunity; (e) the City of Philadelphia is immune; (f) respondeat superior is not applicable to any defendant; (g) plaintiffs have not alleged facts which could constitute a violation of the eighth amendment; (h) the complaint fails to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), 1986, 1994 and 2000d against all and/or some of the defendants; (i) plaintiffs have no right of privacy; and (j) this court should not exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims. We will deal with each of these arguments seriatim.

I. CASE OR CONTROVERSY:

Defendants claim that this action fails to meet the requirements of the case or controversy clause of Article III because plaintiffs have not alleged any "real and immediate" injury and thus lack the requisite "personal stake in the outcome." Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 372, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 493-94, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974). Defendants argue that it is speculative to assume that the named plaintiffs will again be subjected to the conditions at YSC of which they complain and that the allegations of past wrongs are insufficient to raise the prospect of future harm which is needed to justify a claim for injunctive relief.³ We reject this argument.

Defendants' objection is based upon the Court's analysis in O'Shea and Goode. In O'Shea the Court concluded that allegations concerning practices of racially discriminatory bond setting, sentencing and assessing of fees did not meet the requirements of Article III because the complaint lacked allegations of specific instances of such abuse by defendants and there was no support for the assertion that there were "continuing, present adverse effects" upon plaintiffs. O'Shea, supra, 414 U.S. at 496, 94 S.Ct. 669. The Court held that before the named plaintiffs could seek relief for a class, they must establish the requisite case or controversy with the defendants.

In Goode the plaintiffs claimed that there was a pervasive pattern of illegal and unconstitutional mistreatment of citizens of Philadelphia by police officers. The plaintiffs only sued supervisory officials of the City, including the Mayor, City Managing Director, Police Commissioner and two police officials, and sought injunctive relief against these officials in the form of, inter alia, a disciplinary program to discourage police misconduct. The proof at trial failed to establish either a pervasive pattern of misconduct by the police or an "affirmative link between the occurrence of the various incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy by defendants — express or otherwise — showing their authorization or approval of such misconduct." Goode, supra, 423 U.S. at 371, 96 S.Ct. at 604.

The Court concluded that plaintiffs did not demonstrate a case or controversy between themselves and defendants because plaintiffs' claim to injury "rests not upon what the named defendants might do to them in the future . . . but upon what one of a small, unnamed minority of policemen might do to them in the future because of that unknown policeman's perception of departmental disciplinary procedures." Id. at 372, 96 S.Ct. at 605.

The facts alleged in this action are significantly different from those described in O'Shea and Goode. We find that there is a case or controversy between the named plaintiffs and defendants. Each named plaintiff allegedly has suffered an injury due to the conditions at YSC or conduct by YSC personnel. In particular, numerous incidents of allegedly excessive use of corporal punishment and solitary confinement are described in the complaint. The supervisory defendants (e. g., Mayor, City Managing Director, YSC Board of Managers) are linked to these conditions at YSC and misconduct by YSC employees because the complaint avers that this mistreatment is a direct consequence of policies and practices which have been authorized or acquiesced in by these defendants. This nexus is supported by the statutory duty these defendants have to maintain and supervise the facility. We conclude that the complaint demonstrates both injury to the named plaintiffs and defendants' connection to those injuries.

Concerning the prospect of future harm, defendants incorrectly posit the question in terms of the likelihood of the named plaintiffs' being confined again at YSC. Rather, the issue is whether the plaintiffs' class, consisting of current and future YSC residents, is likely to suffer injury due to defendants' conduct. The complaint alleges that the conditions of confinement and treatment at YSC, which apply to all YSC residents, violate the eighth amendment. Defendants have not demonstrated that these conditions have substantially changed since the complaint was filed, and thus if violations are proven, future residents will likely suffer injuries similar to those allegedly inflicted on the named plaintiffs. The supervisory defendants are sufficiently linked to these conditions and practices because they are administratively responsible for the maintenance of YSC and allegedly have initiated or acquiesced in policies and practices which have resulted in constitutional violations.

II. ABSTENTION:

Defendants suggest that we should abstain from deciding the issues involved in the suit. Without pointing to an explicit legal theory of abstention, defendants emphasize that the juvenile justice system is one "fraught with local concern" and "permeated by state law." We agree but conclude that these factors are insufficient to justify federal court abstention when federal constitutional rights are involved.

Abstention "is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it." Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1244, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976), quoting from, County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 188-89, 79 S.Ct. 1060, 3 L.Ed.2d 1163 (1959). There are three defined areas where abstention is appropriate. The first is Pullman abstention. This theory requires a federal court to defer a decision in a case where a federal constitutional issue is raised which is premised on an unsettled question of state law and which may be mooted or avoided by a resolution of the state law issue. Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 500-01, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). In this action there is no unclear question of state law.

The second circumstance where abstention is appropriate is "where there have been presented difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar." Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, supra, 424 U.S. at 814, 96 S.Ct. at 1244; Burford v. Sun...