remanding on the basis of Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981)
How later courts described this case
- remanding on the basis of Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981)
- considering whether prisoner double celling implicates the Eighth Amendment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority’s ruling that the doctrine of “law of the case” is inapplicable is incorrect. Furthermore, to remand this matter for additional proceedings after fourteen years of litigation is an injustice to society and our judicial system as a whole.
It is undisputed by the parties that “totality of the circumstances” is the correct standard to be applied in determining whether prison populations rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment. The majority has wrongly chosen to believe Appellants’ version of the basis for the June 22, 1984, order which imposed a population cap on inmate population: that it is based on a “one man, one cell” principal, and that no constitutional or statutory basis exists for the decision. Appellees’ contention that the trial court, in all the hearings and opinions herein, applied a “totality of the circumstances” standard for the purpose of alleviating unconstitutional conditions is supported by the record. Appellants’ contention that the “one man, one cell” standard was applied is in error.
Further, I must agree with Appellees that the “one man, one cell” occupancy limit does not require a constitutional or statutory basis, because the trial court order is the “law *474 of the case.” The order, which eliminated an unconstitutional condition of confinement, is well within the powers of the trial court. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 , 101 S.Ct. 2392 , 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981).
Although the majority concedes “it is hornbook law that issues decided by an appellate court on a prior appeal between the same parties become the law of the case and will not be reconsidered on a second appeal,” and that the doctrine applies only to appellate court rulings, my brethren are incorrect in holding no appellate review of this standard has been previously undertaken.
Through the fourteen year history of this controversy, this Court has issued seven (7) orders, and Commonwealth Court has issued orders in eight (8) instances. These orders range from stays, to denial of a petition for allowance of appeal, to full adjudication resulting in opinions from this Court and Commonwealth Court. Throughout this lengthy history, appellate courts have continually upheld the equitable powers of the trial court in their attempts to implement a structured population cap in the prison systems.
Thus, the instant action has produced fifteen (15) appellate orders. Regardless of whether the standard was explicitly reviewed through these multitudinous appellate appearances, it is time to end this litigation. The majority’s statement that no appellate ruling exists in this case on the question of a statutorily or constitutionally required “one man, one cell” standard should not be the basis for our opinion or a remand order. The record discloses a “totality of the circumstances” argument was employed in the decision to implement a population cap among the inmates. This fact alone is sufficient for our Court to exercise a “hands off” policy, particularly where the trial court has dealt very competently in handling the inadequate conditions of the prison system.
I would affirm the trial court’s order and put a stop to this senseless litigation.