Jackson v. Hendrick

Appeal Petition for Allowance of GRANTED.

503 A.2d Petitioner, POYSER, Stephen CO., & INC. NEWMAN Pennsylvania. Supreme 27, 1985. Dec. GRANTED, No. 166 Appeal Petition Allowance Docket 1985. Appeal E.D. A.2d 400 al., JACKSON, Appellees, et

Gerald HENDRICK, al., Appellants. Edward J. et Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of 15, 1985. Submitted Feb.

Decided Jan. Mather, Sol., City Gold, Barbara W. Richard J. Divisional Sol., Deputy Sellito, Vilim, City August Guy V. P. City Asst. Sols., for appellant. Defender,

David Rudovsky, Bronstein, First Asst. Donald Defender, Asst. for appellee. Neuhauser, Gen., R.

Gregory Deputy Atty. for Com. of Pa. Henson,

Eric B. Deputy Atty., Philadelphia Dist. for Co. Biondo, Dennis R. Pittsburgh, Allegheny for Co. McNamara, James M. for Bucks Doylestown, Co. Wentz, Norristown, Frederick M. for Montgomery Co. Halsted, Chester, John S. West for Chester Co. Donaldson, Jr., Media, for Delaware Co. Bd. S. Matthew Inspectors. of Prison LARSEN, FLAHERTY, NIX, C.J., McDER- and

Before PAPADAKOS, HUTCHINSON, MOTT, ZAPPALA and JJ. OPINION NIX, Chief Justice. extraordinary jurisdiction of has assumed

This Court Philadelphia from City of the two appeals by officials Philadelphia Common Pleas entered orders concerning conditions in litigation of protracted in the wake first order established Philadelphia system. The prison the prison population timetables for the reduction triple-celling double inmates. the elimination of noncompliance for appellants contempt held the second monetary sanctions. Our imposed with those schedules proper limited to a determination review herein is the over- adjudging whether employ standard when cruel and unusual crowding amounts to inmates to the United Eighth Amendment punishment under For the Amend. VIII. States Constitution. U.S. Const. follow, order contempt must vacate the reasons which we Pleas Court of Common and remand this matter to the proceedings. further

I. case over fourteen tangled history spans this (5) prisoners the Philadel- 1971 five years. February in equity against City filed action phia system a class Pleas seek- of Common Philadelphia officials1 the alleged of confinement ing from conditions injunctive relief rights. statutory constitutional prisoners’ to violate and, testimony panel A heard extensive judge three pris- Philadelphia Superintendent of 1. Named as defendants were Council, ons, City Mayor, the Welfare Commis- members of sioner, Prisons and the Wardens of Holmes- of Trustees of the Board State, Center and the House Correc- burg, Eastern the Detention tion. April opinion 1972 issued an and decree nisi holding that the prisoners’ conditions of confinement violated their con- stitutional statutory rights2 and amounted to cruel and punishment unusual under the federal and state constitu- tions. The panel’s conclusion that conditions in the prison system were unconstitutional was upon findings based overcrowding coupled inadequate facilities and staff. it found Specifically, cold, was that cells were drafty, damp, dirty vermin; infested with roaches and other that shortage guards the danger assault; increased that an inmate effective classification system lacking; personal hygiene, medical and psychiatric needs were inade- to; quately attended that food served did provide ade- nutrition; quate and that drug addicts suffering withdrawal symptoms given proper were not panel treatment. The ordered the defendants to take immediate action to improve and, addition, conditions ordered the appointment of a special master to assist the court in fashioning appropriate relief. After the exceptions defendants’ had been dismissed final, and the decree made appealed defendants to the Commonwealth Court. That court affirmed the denial of exceptions except as to the portion providing of the decree appointment for the of a master. Jackson, Hendrick v. (1973). A.2d Pa.Commw. This Court allowed appeal an on the question of the propriety appointing a special master and reinstated the decree in its entirety. Hendrick, Jackson 457 Pa. 321 A.2d 603 June On 1976 the Court of Common Pleas issued an interim requiring remedial decree the defendants to estab- “cap” lish a on the prison population based on a “one cell” principle. one This decree also mandated release prisoners held in default of One Thousand Five Hundred ($1,500) Dollars bail or less where necessary maintain prison population at the level established. The defendants to the again appealed Commonwealth Court. While rights 2. The court found that the conditions violated the to due communication, process rights and freedom of civil under federal law, Pennsylvania governing prison statutes conditions and adminis- Philadelphia tration and the Home Rule Charter. and “Stipulation executed a parties appeal pending Court of Common approval Agreement” with provided for a February 1977. That document Pleas on and numer- a release mechanism “cap,” prisoner population The conditions. June prison improvements ous the Commonwealth by affirmed curiam per decree was Court October Agree- “Stipulations further and entered into parties three and 1980. The May

ments” on October resulted in nu- 1977 and 1980 signed between agreements As described conditions. improvements merous Pleas, as positive steps those were of Common the Court follows: have delivery systems care psychiatric

The health and improved of staff and revamped, with the addition been Wing was the new Medical Services facilities. Center, vastly Philadelphia Detention inaugurated at the facilities for both medical the health care improving markedly with the dank This contrasts psychiatric cases. for that Holmesburg used at and cheerless block once purpose. services, addictive dis- social complements

The staff treatment, have all been and correctional services ease augmented____ codified, in- and an have

Disciplinary procedures been being implemented. grievance system mate ... ended, for the strict rules

Censorship of mail has in the inmate’s only mail for contraband opening of cells and of person Rules for searches of presence. implemented. have been cell-block, giv- on each have installed

Telephones been to their families. daily access ing individuals balanced revamped, number hours have been Visiting per one to two week. increased from visits has been visits now parents. their Contact may now visit Children through glass obtain, were conducted they once where intercom. telephone and a wall jobs training positions numbers vocational increased,

for inmates have and are scheduled to increase further the cooperation district, with of the school the ... numbers and accessibility public of adult edu- cation classes have increased. changes, mention,

Other too numerous have been brought case, as a about result of this through the Orders, continuing process decrees, of Court consent Reports, Master’s and improved management practices.3 Hendrick, Jackson v. Term, No. 2437 February 1971 (Phila.C.C.P. 17, 1981) March slip op. 5-7. Nevertheless, in an order accompanying opinion the from taken, quotation which above the Court of Common Pleas, dissatisfied conditions, with overcrowded man- population cap dated a consistent with “one one cell” 22, occupancy.4 On June 1981 that order amended to was provide result, a “rated capacity” prison. for each As a capacity total for the prison system was fixed at two (2,190) thousand one ninety hundred inmates. The amended prohibited triple order celling immediately and double cell- ing 1, after August Single 1981. occupancy was also man- Philadelphia dated for all correctional institutions thereafter A detailed procedure established. bail release also was prescribed to permit compliance the order. The de- fendant’s exceptions dismissed, to the amended order were agreements 3. provisions concerning also contained environmen- conditions, system, training guards, tal a classification prison law libraries. 27, 4. On March Philadelphia Attorney petitioned 1981 the District 8, petition intervene in this matter. His was denied on June 1981 and 1, appealed July he to the Commonwealth Court. On 1981 District 22, Attorney petitioned stay this Court to the June 1981 order and to jurisdiction. plenary partial stay granted per assume Kauffmann, JJ., A was Nix and 7, July prevent dangerous 1981 to the release of 25, prisoners. May extraordinary On 1982 the full Court denied relief Hendrick, 220, stay. and vacated the Jackson v. Pa. 446 A.2d 226 (1982). subsequently The Commonwealth Court affirmed the denial Attorney’s petition of the District to intervene as well as the dismissal exceptions of the defendants’ to the June 1981 order. Jackson v. Hendrick, (1983). 72 Pa.Commw. 456 A.2d 229 This Court denied allocatur on June affirmed. v. Hen- Jackson Commonwealth 63, 456 drick, 72 A.2d Pa.Commw. hearing motion subsequently filed a plaintiffs conditions. A relief from overcrowded

seeking further and, held on on June hearing February which is of Common Pleas issued order 1984, the Court That order subject appeal. the instant principal pertinent part:5 provided existing institutions population

1. The total Prison, Prisons, i.e., Holmesburg Laurel Philadelphia Detention Philadelphia Hill, Facility, Women’s Detention Correction, shall not exceed: Center, and the House inmates; 1984, 3,525 (a) By October inmates; 1984, 3,250 24, (b) December By inmates; 30, 1985, 2,995 (c) March By 30, 1985, 2,700 (d) inmates. June By (3) of three foregoing, housing to all 2. In addition the 1, shall end on and after October single to a cell inmates (2) to a cell shall single inmates housing All of two 1984. 30, on after 1985. end June dismissed, were exceptions, which

The defendants filed 22, 1984 to the Common- June appealed subsequently applica- That the defendants’ court denied wealth Court. 1, 28, 1984. October September for On supersedeas tion on the sponte directed the Pleas sua Common June 22 with the compliance to demonstrate defendants adjudica- for an that court plaintiffs petitioned order. The 3, a conduct- hearing At contempt on 1984. tion October population that the following day, established ed the it was one hundred prison system exceeded Philadelphia of the 1, (185) the mandated for October maximum eighty-five triple 1984, forty (540) inmates were five hundred and that 1984, 11, 1, 1984.6 On October celled as of October required plumbing improvements at The 1984 order also 5. June all sentenced Philadelphia Center and the transfer of Detention system. Philadelphia prison in the federal state inmates housed provisions of the June The found violations the other court also (4), supra. 22 order. See footnote defendants held in of the contempt were June 22 order. imposed The sanctions fine of Forty-four included a Dollars ($44) each per day prisoner population in excess of the cap set in the forth June order and a fine of Three ($3,000) Thousand per Dollars month for each month defendants remained in triple violation of double and celling prohibitions of that fines order. All were to increase percent (10%) at a rate of month. per contempt ten adjudication also appealed the Commonwealth Court.7

On an for a application stay October of the June 22 order was filed on behalf Honorable W. Wilson Goode, Mayor Philadelphia. hearing A on was held October and October 1984 this writer granted stay (2) order, one paragraphs and two of the June 22 population “cap” and single-cell occupancy provisions.8

On 1984 the granted October Commonwealth Court application appeals defendants’ to transfer their from the June 22 to the Superior and October orders Court. plaintiffs then requested this Court assume extraor- dinary of the jurisdiction appeals. two The defendants joined request. in that On November 1984 we ordered the transfer appeals to this Court.9 The matter was submitted on at the of this briefs direction Court on Febru- ary 1985. Our order limited the to be specifically issue considered the proper evaluating to whether standard for prison overcrowding “one-man, or “totality one-cell” of the circumstances.”

II. this approaching sight matter we must lose of fact that of to program prison gave reform which rise 1736(b), taking appeal operated 7. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. of that as supersedeas contempt an automatic of the order. stay compliance upon 8. The was made conditional immediate with order, aspects satisfactory progress other the June 22 of with facilities, planning coopera- and of new and continued construction program. tion in the bail release jurisdiction pursuant 9. This Court to 42 is vested Pa.C.S. §

465 in the case the decrees instant falls under the of the rubric Eighth prohibition pun- Amendment’s of cruel and unusual ishment. U.S. Const. Amend. VIII.10 The United States that, assessing Court has cautioned claims Supreme “[i]n unusual, of conditions are cruel and courts that confinement inquiries ‘spring in mind their from constitu- must bear that that their them requirements judicial tional answers to must reflect that fact rather than a court’s idea of how best ” v. Chapman, Rhodes facility.’ to 452 operate a detention 2392, 337, 351, 2401, (1981), 101 69 L.Ed.2d 59 U.S. S.Ct. v. Bell quoting Wolfish, 1861, 441 99 U.S. S.Ct. 1874, (1979). has ques- 60 L.Ed.2d 447 That Court also the judiciary the extent to should become tioned which prison reform: involved in America are problems prisons complex of

[T]he intractable, and, point, readily to the are not they more require exper- of decree. Most susceptible resolution of tise, and that commitment comprehensive planning, resources, peculiarly province are within the all of which government. executive branches legislative of the reasons, ill to deal equipped courts are For all of those problems adminis- urgent increasingly with the fact recognition and reform. Judicial tration no sense realism. healthy reflects more than Martinez, 416 v. 396, 404-05, Procunier 94 S.Ct. U.S. omitted). 1807, (1974) (footnote 224 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d “ Moreover, determines ‘the nature the violation only court can order Therefore a scope remedy.’ found.” Ruiz v. correct the violation relief sufficient Estelle, quoting Swann (5th Cir.1982), 1115, F.2d 1145 679 Education, 402 U.S. Board Charlotte-Mecklenburg see Union (1971); 1267, 1276, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 16, 91 S.Ct. required, imposed, excessive fines bail not be nor 10. "Excessive shall Eighth punishments Amend inflicted.” nor cruel and unusual through applicable the Fourteenth Amend the States is made ment California, S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 370 U.S. Robinson v. ment. I, (1962). 13 of the held Article section This Court has Eighth with the Amendment. Pennsylvania is coextensive Constitution (1982), cert. Zettlemoyer, 454 A.2d 937 500 Pa. Commonwealth denied, L.Ed.2d 1327 461 U.S. 103 S.Ct. 466

County DiBuono, Jail Inmates v. (3d 713 F.2d 984 Cir. denied, 1983), cert. 1102, 465 1600, U.S. 104 S.Ct. 80 (1984). L.Ed.2d 130

The limitations imposed by the Eighth Amendment upon the conditions of incarceration were first considered by the Supreme Court in Rhodes v. Chapman, supra: Amendment,

The Eighth in only words, three imposes the constitutional upon limitation punishments: they can- “cruel and unusual.” The Court has interpreted these “in manner,” words and dynamic v. flexible Gregg 153, Georgia, 428 U.S. 171 S.Ct. 49 [96 (1976) L.Ed.2d (joint opinion), and has extended the 859] Amendment’s reach beyond the physical pun- barbarous ishments at issue in the Court’s earliest cases. See Utah, Wilkerson v. 99 130 (1879); U.S. L.Ed. [25 345] Kemmler, re 136 930, U.S. 436 S.Ct. 34 L.Ed. [10 519] (1890). Today Eighth prohibits punish- Amendment which, ments although barbarous, not physically “involve the unnecessary and pain,” wanton infliction of Gregg Georgia, supra, at 173 2925], S.Ct. at or [428 U.S.] [96 are grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime. Coker v. 584, Georgia, 2866, 592 U.S. S.Ct. [97 (1977) 53 L.Ed.2d (plurality opinion); Weems v. Unit- 982] States, ed 217 U.S. 349 (1910). S.Ct. 54 L.Ed. [30 793] Among “unnecessary and wanton” inflictions of are pain those that “totally are without penological justification.” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 183 S.Ct. [428 U.S.] [96 Gamble, Estelle v. 2929]; 429 U.S. S.Ct. [97 50 L.Ed.2d 251] No static “test” can exist by which courts determine whether conditions of unusual, confinement are cruel and Eighth for the amendment “must its meaning draw from evolving decency standards of mark progress Dulles, of a maturing society.” Trop 356 U.S. 590, 598, S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (plurality opin- [78 630] ion). held, however, The Court has that “Eighth Amend- ment judgments should neither be nor appear to be mere- Estelle, ly the subjective Rummel v. judges. views” of 263, 275 S.Ct. 63 L.Ed.2d 445 U.S. [100 382] sure, that contemplates “the Constitution (1980). To be brought to judgment own will be in the end [a court’s] given of a question acceptability” of the on the bear supra, at 597 Georgia, Coker v. punishment. U.S.] [433 (plurality opinion); Gregg Georgia, v. at S.Ct. 2868] [97 opinion). (joint at 182 S.Ct. at supra, 2929] U.S.] [96 [428 “ objective by should be informed ‘judgments] such But ” Rummel possible extent.’ to the maximum factors 274-275, Estelle, S.Ct. at supra, at 1139] U.S.] [100 [445 at 592 Georgia, supra, Coker v. quoting [433 U.S.] [97 (plurality opinion)____ at S.Ct. 2866] the conditions of confine apply when principles These must at issue. Conditions punishment compose ment pain, infliction of unnecessary not involve the wanton the severity grossly disproportionate may they nor be Estelle warranting imprisonment. crime of the Gamble, of medical care held that the denial supra, we case, it can result because, in the worst and unusual cruel cases, it can in torture, and, even less serious physical in U.S., purpose. any penological in pain result without Finney, In Hutto v. U.S. at at 103 S.Ct. [437 290]. [97 (1978) conditions 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 678, 98 S.Ct. ] constituted cruel prisons in two Arkansas confinement unques in resulted they punishment unusual because needs. human of basic deprivations and serious tioned Hutto, alone Gamble than those other Conditions minimal inmates of the combination, may deprive inor conditions Such of life’s necessities. measure civilized stan contemporary under the and unusual could be cruel Gamble, supra recognized that we decency dard condi But at 103-104 S.Ct. at 290-291]. [97 U.S.] [429 under cruel and unusual said to be tions that cannot To the unconstitutional. are not standards contemporary harsh, even restrictive and are conditions that such extent pay criminal offenders penalty part are they society. against offenses for their 345-47, (footnote at at 452 U.S. S.Ct. 2398-99

Id. omitted). principles the above to an Ohio at which

Applying of inmates necessitated an celling the double unan- ticipated prison population, increase the Rhodes Court violation. The Court con- Eighth found no Amendment significant findings the district court’s sidered celling deprivations “did not lead essential double care, food, or sanitation” or medical “increase violence or create other conditions among inmates intolerable 101 S.Ct. at 2400. Thus prison confinement.” Id. notion that the of implicitly rejected any housing the Court inmate in a cell is a of prison per more than one se violation also Eighth Amendment.11 Rhodes Court found the district court insufficient to upon by factors relied were punishment: cruel and unusual establish the District considerations which five support relied also are insufficient to its constitutional long impris- conclusion. The court relied on the terms SOCF; onment served inmates at the fact SOCF “design capacity”; more inmates than its housed 38% recommendation studies that each inmate have of several square living quarters; sugges- at least 50-55 feet of in spend tion that inmates most of their time double-celled cellmates; their cells their and the fact that double temporary Supra, at was not a condition. celling SOCF general con- at 343-344 S.Ct. at These 2397-2398]. [101 in cruel proving siderations fall far short themselves for there is no evidence that punishment and unusual these circumstances either inflicts celling double under rejected Supreme Court 11. We note that the United States has also celling right the Fifth Amendment claim that double violates Wolfish, pretrial process. due Bell v. 441 U.S. 99 detainees to acknowledged “a 447 The Court S.Ct. 60 L.Ed.2d guilt may punished prior adjudication in to an detainee process at 1871 due of law.” Id. at 99 S.Ct. accordance with concluded, however, (footnote omitted). cell- The Court that double more, rejecting ing, punishment, the notion without did not amount to principle lurking in the is some sort of ‘one one cell’ "that there 99 S.Ct. at Due Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Id. Process unnecessary pain grossly disproportionate or or wanton warranting At severity imprisonment. to the of crimes most, theory these considerations amount to a that double Perhaps they aspiration inflicts reflect an celling pain. confinement. long-term an ideal environment toward pris- does not mandate comfortable But the Constitution ons, type, persons which house prisons SOCF’s crimes, free of discomfort. of serious cannot be convicted weighed by are Thus, properly these considerations than a court. administration rather legislature violation, the District Court being There no constitutional celling double no to consider whether authority had to the response was the best light of these considerations prison population. Ohio’s statewide increase omitted). 348-50, (footnotes at 2400-2401 Id. at 101 S.Ct. “totality mandates consideration clearly Rhodes in assessing of conditions” “totality or the circumstances” at 363 n. 101 S.Ct. at prison conditions. Id. challenged (Brennan, J., concurring judgment); Smith 2407 n. 10 Estelle, Cir.1982); Fairman, (7th Ruiz v. 690 F.2d v. (5th Cir.1982); George, 679 F.2d 1115 Villanueva F.2d (8th Cir.1981); Thompson, Madyun F.2d 851 a must (7th Cir.1981). approach this court 868 Under whole, conditions, taken as a prison determine whether to pain or or amount unnecessary either inflict wanton for the crime disproportionate punishment grossly Rhodes, supra incarcerated. prisoner has been which the an making at 2399. such 452 at 101 S.Ct. U.S. food, sanitation and to consider appropriate it is inquiry Fairman, care, Rhodes, supra; supra; Smith v. medical Cir.1980), denied, (10th cert. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 Ramos v. (1981); vio 68 L.Ed.2d 450 U.S. 101 S.Ct. (9th F.2d 1237 lence, Rhodes, v. Hoptowit Ray, supra; in Cir.1982); Lamm, spent time cell supra; Ramos v. Faulkner, 715 activity, v. opportunity for outside Wellman v. (7th Cir.1983); Jail Inmates County F.2d 269 Union of the repair state of DiBuono, general and the supra; Faulkner, County Jail supra; v. Union facility, Wellman DiBuono, supra. Inmates

III. circum “totality concluded that the the Having employed to in assess test is the exclusive test be stances” violations, must Amendment we now ing alleged Eighth in the instant applied whether that standard was determine to remand the matter to necessary case. If not it will be proceedings. Pleas for further the of Common Court the question there can be no that Initially we note that in at Philadelphia prisons prevailing sordid conditions protracted litigation of this time of the commencement of the consequence Amendment. As a Eighth violated however, subsequent agreements, decree and 1976 remedial prison conditions. improvements there vast have been supra. See to I, Accordingly proper we it is section believe imposing 1984 decree a as to whether the June inquire man, finding population upon one cell” limit is based “one circumstances, that, prison conditions totality by requir- remedied only unconstitutional and can be remain ing single-cell occupancy. as as the

From the of the lower court well opinion it is transcript hearing conducted October simply of Common Pleas views evident principle cell” as law of the case.” “one one “the Hendrick, Term, (Phila. Jackson February No. 2437 18, 1984) slip 4; Notes of Testimo September op. C.C.P. The court did not hold that 1984 at 85. ny, October conditions, overcrowding together with other current Eighth to totality, continued violate viewed their Amendment, single-celling required remedy or Rather, the court’s June 1984 decree that violation. attempt than a to enforce no more renewed appears That order, “the law.” its 1976 remedial which it views as sanctions, is its attendant untenable. rigid approach, with

471 application no in The “law the case” doctrine has of man, case.12 The “one one cell” standard is the instant engraved simply stone but principle an immutable (9) years ago nine to then-intolerable judicial response made response, The basis of that more underlying conditions. over, large evaporated. The record part has reveals man, cell” Pleas the “one one Common derived longer from are no force. statutes which theory Philadelphia prison inmates in the single-celling The 1790, 2 April 5, in 1790. Act of was initiated See system Case, (1836). 1 531; 439 The Wharton Sm.L. Pember’s soli- “the of unremitted legislature reasoned that addition effected, can be as far as it employment, tude to laborious deter____” Act contribute as much reform as to [would] 5, 1790, 1. statutory single-celling April supra § century. into the twentieth See continued well requirement 353, (1964) 8, 1851, 1, P.S. 422 April P.L. 61 Act § § 228, (1964) 1981); 30, 1831, March P.L. 8 (repealed Act of § 121, 1981); 13, 1931, 4, P.L. 53 P.S. May Act of (repealed § 1981). (1957) were provisions (repealed 13644 Similar § 14, 1835, 232, Act of P.L. April made for detainees. See 19, 1978); Act of 11, (repealed July 61 P.S. 634 § § 1981). 1117, 4, (1964) (repealed 1917, P.L. 61 P.S. 784 § § “one one cell” court’s formulation of the lower these grounded on the existence of principle primarily Board A.2d 628 214 Pa. Pa. McCrory, applies See also Commonwealth 188 Pa. prior River Ondovchik (1968). Commonwealth v. The doctrine of "law of the case” is well established: It A.2d 307 is hornbook law that issues decided will not be only appeal Port 14 A.2d 92 Adjustment, Pa. 422 (1951); 63 A. 41 A. to the Authority v. between Ondovchik, Casari 615 195 reconsidered rulings (1940); Tick, Inc., (1898). 222 A.2d (1906); 439 Pa. v. the same v. Victoria Amusement Pa. by Truscott of an Creachen v. 421 Pa. P.U.C., It must Cowen appellate 431 on a parties (1966); 408 Pa. 20, second v. A.2d 670 Pennsylvania Pa. Bromley emphasized Binenstock, becomes 218 A.2d court. Filanowski v. Brown 169, appeal. an Enterprises, 182 Brothers appellate (1970); Estate, the law the case 246 478 that the doctrine A.2d 366 Pa. Plate Glass See: Delaware A.2d ^[578] Kuchinic 682 Carpet court Inc., 424, Pa. 519, Zoning (1962); (1966). on a Co., Co., 427 339 77 Hendrick, See Jackson 2437 February No. statutes. Term, (Phila.C.C.P. 17, 1981) 9, 16. slip op. March 10, repealed All statutes the Act of by July of these were 1, (Supp.1985), P.L. No. 61 P.S. 2191 to the § required separation prisoners, extent of with they 14, 1835, April of the Act of which was exception of repealed entirety by in its the Act October P.L. support originally 909 No. 173 9. Thus the identified for § man, longer the “one one cell” standard no exists. In a solely this matter we limited our review whether man, requirement constitutionally “one one cell” is mandat- heard this matter as a result of the exercise ed. Since we extraordinary jurisdiction by way appeal and not of an below, pending a final the cause is still adjudication issues resolutions of are involving there remain fact which by determined the Court of Common Pleas.13 Accord- best the cause is remanded with the clarification ingly, provided herein.14 PAPADAKOS, JJ.,

ZAPPALA each files a dissenting opinion.

ZAPPALA, Justice, dissenting. agree legal I analysis employed by

While with in- Majority Opinion regard proper to the standard adjudging overcrowding volved in whether of a I amounts to cruel and unusual must dissent. punishment, jurisdiction appeal We in this to the "one one limited our thereto, arguments parties cell" issue and confined the therefore any we cannot make a final determination as to of the other matters order, affording supra involved in the June see n. without parties opportunity to first raise those additional issues in the Moreover, Court of Common Pleas. subject in view the nature of the matter, the fact that this cause has existed to date fourteen years significance. Any change not of serious circumstance may requires continuing equitable degrees which occur review of designed apply long period which are over a of time. 14. This Court’s Order of October 1984 is to remain in full force pending and effect further review the court below in accordance opinion. with this The basis my dissent is the propriety remanding this matter to the Court of Common Pleas. As the Majority forth, sets aptly this case has in litigation been for over fourteen years. that time a ample more than record has produced from been which we can evaluate and determine a constitutional My violation. review of the record indicates although a constitutional violation may have been present inception at the of this litigation, as the matter now stands, it is clear that the conditions of the prison system do not reach constitutional infirmity. I see Accordingly, no or necessity remanding basis for this matter for further proceedings.

PAPADAKOS, Justice, dissenting.

I ruling dissent. The the majority’s that doctrine of “law inapplicable Furthermore, of case” is is incorrect. to remand this matter for additional four- proceedings after years litigation teen of is an to injustice society and our judicial system as a whole. undisputed

It is by parties that “totality circumstances” applied is the correct standard to be in determining prison populations whether rise to the level punishment. cruel and unusual majority has wrongly Appellants’ chosen to believe version of the for the basis imposed June order on population cap which a population: man, inmate it “one that is based on a one cell” that no principal, statutory constitutional or basis exists court, for the decision. Appellees’ contention that the trial herein, in hearings all the a opinions applied “totality alleviating the circumstances” standard for the purpose supported by Ap- unconstitutional conditions is the record. man, contention “one pellants’ that the one cell” standard applied is in error. Further, I must agree Appellees the “one a occupancy require one cell” limit does not constitutional basis, trial order “law statutory or because the court is the order, eliminated an unconstitu- case.” which confinement, powers within the condition of well tional 337, 101 Chapman, trial court. Rhodes v. U.S. 69 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. concedes “it is hornbook law

Although majority appeal prior an court a appellate issues decided law of the case and parties the same become the between appeal,” a second and that reconsidered on will brethren appellate rulings, my to court applies only doctrine this standard holding appellate no review of are incorrect undertaken. previously has been controversy, history the fourteen this Through year orders, (7) has seven Commonwealth this Court issued These eight instances. orders Court has issued orders allowance of stays, petition to denial of range from from this resulting opinions full appeal, adjudication this Throughout lengthy and Commonwealth Court. eq- continually upheld have history, courts appellate attempts imple- in their of the trial court powers uitable cap systems. in the population ment a structured produced appel- action has fifteen Thus, the instant ex- the standard was of whether Regardless late orders. appellate ap- through these multitudinous reviewed plicitly this litigation. majority’s it is time to end pearances, case ruling exists this appellate that no statement “one required statutorily constitutionally of a or question our the basis for one cell” standard should “totality a The record discloses or a remand order. opinion deci- employed argument the circumstances” the inmates. cap among a implement population sion to to exercise a for our Court This alone is sufficient fact court has particularly trial policy, “hands off” where inadequate condi- handling very competently dealt prison system. tions of the stop put court’s order and

I would affirm the trial litigation. this senseless

Case Details

Case Name: Jackson v. Hendrick

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Jan 16, 1986

Citation: 503 A.2d 400

Docket Number: 167 E.D. Appeal Docket 1984

Court Abbreviation: Pa.