Ronald Gillette v. Diane Prosper
66 V.I. 951
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Ronald Gillette, an inmate at Golden Grove Correctional Facility (U.S. Virgin Islands), sued alleging Eighth Amendment, § 1983, Bivens, Rehabilitation Act, and ADA violations based on inadequate medical/mental-health care, failure to protect, and deplorable conditions.
- Many of Gillette’s complaints overlap with long-running United States v. Territory of Virgin Islands (the Golden Grove Litigation), a CRIPA action dating to 1986 that produced a 2013 settlement/Order and an appointed Monitor enforcing systemic reform.
- Gillette sought declaratory, compensatory, and injunctive relief, including release or transfer — which he characterized as a “prisoner release order” under the PLRA, requiring a three-judge court.
- The District Court denied Gillette’s motion to convene a three-judge court, finding he failed to satisfy the PLRA’s two prerequisites: (1) a prior less-intrusive court order has failed to remedy the deprivation; and (2) defendants had a reasonable time to comply. The District Court treated some claims as particularized to Gillette and others as systemic and within the 2013 Order’s scope.
- Gillette appealed immediately. The Third Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the order denying a three-judge court was not a final decision and did not fit exceptions to the final-judgment rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of a motion to convene a three-judge court is immediately appealable under § 1291 | Denial effectively terminated Gillette’s ability to obtain a prisoner release order and thus ended the litigation for practical purposes | The order did not resolve merits or dismiss claims; litigation remains pending and is not final | Denied — order not final under § 1291; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the collateral-order doctrine (Cohen) permits interlocutory review of the three-judge issue | Immediate review is required because the three-judge restriction affects the core remedy and is too important to delay | The three criteria of Cohen are not met: issue not separate from merits and not effectively unreviewable after final judgment | Denied — collateral-order doctrine inapplicable |
| Whether the Gillespie balancing doctrine authorizes interlocutory appeal | Gillette: delay will deny justice because single judge cannot issue prisoner release order | Defendants: Gillespie is narrow; this denial does not impede further conduct of the case or make review impossible later | Denied — Gillespie not satisfied; appeal inappropriate |
| Whether mandamus or § 1292(a)(1) (refusal of injunction) provides jurisdiction | Gillette: district court’s denial equates to refusal of injunction and mandamus is warranted for clear error | Defendants: no injunction was denied; relief remains available; mandamus is extraordinary and not justified | Denied — neither § 1292(a)(1) nor mandamus applies; ordinary appeal after final judgment suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Territory of Virgin Islands, 748 F.3d 514 (3d Cir. 2014) (discussing long-running Golden Grove Litigation and 2013 Order)
- Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 618 F.3d 398 (3d Cir. 2010) (definition of final decision for § 1291)
- Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (1945) (classic articulation of finality principle)
- Verzilli v. Flexon, Inc., 295 F.3d 421 (3d Cir. 2002) (policy against piecemeal appeals)
- Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (collateral-order doctrine standards)
- Gillespie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148 (1964) (balancing test for limited interlocutory review)
- Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978) (caution against extending Gillespie)
- Jensen v. Dole, 677 F.2d 678 (8th Cir. 1982) (dismissing appeal from denial of three-judge court as nonappealable)
- Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Ridge, 169 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 1999) (district courts retain equitable remedial power under PLRA)
- Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) (interlocutory appeal for practical denial of injunction requires irreparable consequence)
- In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005) (mandamus is extraordinary and limited)