# Opposition Brief — Irene Pernsley v. Martin Harris

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0936%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1985
- **Citation:** 474 U.S. 965

## Text

IN

CRRIGINAL

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNI

October Term, 1984

IRENE PERNSLEY, et al.

MARTIN HARRIS, et al.,

RECEIVED
HAND DELIVERED

AUG 16 1985

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
JPREME ela T us

VUUR

¢
.

ee

Supreme Court, U.S
STATES FILED

AUG 16 1985

JOSEPH F. SPANIOL. JR
; C. ERK

Respondents

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION

FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

DAVID RICHMAN
PHILIP H.

Pepper,

THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

LEBOWITZ
iton & Scheetz

2001 The Fidelity Building
123 South Broad Street

Philadelphia,

PA 19109

(215) 893-3000

Attorneys

Respondents

COUNTERSTATEMENT OF QUESTION
___ PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Whether a conflict with this Court's decisions is
presentea by a decision that a district court may not abstain
from exercising jurisdiction over a proposed class action under
section 1983 for money damages and injunctive relief brought by
inmates of a county prison alleging the unconstitutionality of
conditions of confinement, where defendants in the federal action
are also defendants in a state court class action brought
thirteen years earlier by other inmates and which resulted ina
judgment that conditions in the county jail were in violation of
the state and federal constitutions, where plaintiffs do not seek
to enjoin any state court proceeding nor to restrain local
officials from enforcing any state or local law, and where the
federal complaint alleges that defendants have for ten years

successfully defied state court remedial orders aimed at the same

unconstitutional conditions of confinement.

er

A
A

EVEN IF THE BASIC ELEMENTS WARRANTING

ABSTENTION WERE PRESENT, NO

CONFLICT WITH

THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IS PRESENTED BY THE
LOWER COURTS' REFUSAL TO APPLY YOUNGER
BECAUSE DEFENDANTS' ACTIONS CONSTITUTE BAD
FAITH AND HAVE DELAYED IMPERMISSIBLY THE
CORRECTION OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS

JF CONFINEMENT AT HOLMESBURG...

Cases

Campbell v. Cauthron, 623 F.2d 503 (8th “ir. 1980)

Avenue News, Inc. v. City of Minot, .D.,

1406 (9th Cir. 1984

DeSpain v. Johnston, 731 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1984)

Duran v. Elrod, 713 F.2
cert. denied, 104 S.

Family Division Trial Lawyers v. Moultrie, 725
oa —————————

F.2G 695 (D.C. Cir. 1984)

Gerstein v. Pugn, 420 U.S. 103 (1975)

Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973)

Goldie's Bookstore v. S rio
739 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1984)

Hendrick v. Jackson, No. 1385 C.D. 1976 (Pa.
Commw. Ct. Oct. 1 19

Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 42 }.S. 592 (1975)

Illinois v. General Electri ~, 663 F.2d 206
(7th Cir. 1982), cert ienied, 461 U.S.
913 (1983)

Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, 573 F.2d 98

(lst Cir. 1978)

International Prisoners’ Union v. Rizzo, 356
F. Supp. 806 (E.D. Pa. 1973)

J.P. v. DeSanti, 653 F.2d 1080 (6th Cir. 1981)

Jackson v. Hendrick, No. 71-2437, slip op.
(C.P. Phila. April 7, 1972)

Jackson v. Hendrick, 457 Pa. 405,
321 A.2d 603 (1974)

Jackson v. Hendrick, 72 Pa. Commw. 63,
456 A.2d 229 (1983)

Jackson v. Hendrick, No. 180 E.D. Misc. Docket 1984,
slip op. (Pa., filed October i7, 1984)

Johnson v. Kelly, 583 F.2d 1242 (3d Cir. 1978)

Jones v. Diamond, 594 F.2d 997 (Sth Cir. 1979),
aff'd on rehearing, 636 F.2d 1364 (Sth Cir.)
(en banc), cert. dismissed, 453 U.S. 950 (1981)

Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327 (1977)

Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117 (1975)

Ledbetter v. Jones, 102 S. Ct. 27 (1981)

McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268 (1910)

Middlesex County Ethics Committee
v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982)

Page

uw

Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972) 12

0
o@
Tv
UW
be
w
oO
109)
’
rh
v
@
hO
@
=
+
oe)

a®)
nt
9
c
r= |
"
®
4
<
=
o
|
+
—_
D
N
Pos
r
~
y)
ve
~
"
wo
P.

Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980),
cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041 (1981

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) ll

Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados, 546 F. Sup

Un ted States ity ~ + E > ~ b j gh,
589 F. Supp 79 (W.D. Pa 1984 2

Williams v. Red Bank Board f Education, 662
(3d Cir. 1981) 18, 19

“F.2d 1008
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 1977 20

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) passim

COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioners, the City of Philadel. .wia and several of its
officials (hereinafter “the Philadelphia defendants,"
"petitioners," or “defendants"),+ by their Petition for
Certiorari, ask this Court to review the decision of the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit that abstention under Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), does not require dismissal of an
action attacking conditions in a Philadelphia county jail where
the federal defendants are also defendants in a long-pending
state court action involving the same jail and have stymied for
more than a decade efforts to remedy the jail's unconstitutional
conditions of confinement. This Court has previousiy denied
certiorari review of the issue framed in a case in which the
court of appeals had held, like the court below here, that a

district court may not dismiss a civil rights claim on the basis

1. Petitioners are defendants in Harris, et al. v. Pernsley, et
ai., C.A. No. 82-1847 (E.D. Pa., amended complaint filed, April
19, 1983), and include the Welfare Commissioner of the City of
Philadelphia, members of the Board of Directors of the
Philadelphia prison system, the Superintendent of the
Philadelphia prison system, the Warden of Holmesburg Prison, the
Managing Director and Mayor of the City of Philadelphia, and the
City of Philadelphia itself. The Commissioner of the
Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections and the General Counsel for
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are also defendants in the
Harris action, but have not petitioned for writ of certiorari.
(A copy of the Amended Complaint in Harris is provided in the
Appendix to this brief.)

of a state proceeding in which the federal defendants are simply
opposing the implementation of federal constitutional rights and

are not enforcing state law or policy.

oO
|

Respondents (hereinafter “the Harris plaintiffs”

“plaintiffs") brought this action in 1982 against two state and
several local officials and the City of Philadelphia seeking
monetary and equitable relief from the unconstitutional
overcrowding and other oppressive conditions of confinement at
Holmesburg Prison, one of three Philadelphia county jails.
Respondents’ Amended Complaint averred in essence that conditions
in 1982 remained essentially unchanged from what they were in
1972 when a Pennsylvania state court first declared that
Holmesburg inmates were being subjected to cruel and unusual
punishment and began issuing a series of remedial orders which
defendants disobeyed and which the state court was unwilling or
unable to effectuate. Specifically, the Amended Complaint
alleged that in 1971, inmates at Holmesburg and two other
correctional institutions had commenced an action in state court

challenging the conditions of confinement at the three county

2. The Harris plaintiffs are identified in the caption of the
Amended Complaint. (See Appendix.)

jails.? After extensive testimony, a three-judge state court
determined, based on the “totality of circumstances” test, that
conditions in all three jails, including Holmesburg, subjected
inmates to cruel and unusual punishment. That determination was
affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1974. Jackson v.

Hendrick, 457 Pa. 405, 321 A.2d 603 (1974).

In 1976 -- five years after the state litigation was
begun -- the trial court in Jackson issued its first remedia!

decree which established, inter alia, a maximum inmate capacity
for the Philadelphia prisons, a Provision which, along with the
other contested aspects of the decree, was affirmed by the

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. Hendrick v. Jackson, No. 1385

C.D. 1976 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Oct. 17, 1977) (per curiam). Amended
Complaint #33. In addition, the Jackson parties entered into a
series of consent decrees which are now five in number and are
appended as exhibits to the Amended Complaint. See Amended
Complaint Exhs. A-E. In Stipulation and Agreement I, executed on
February 4, 1977, the defendarts agreed to implement

substantially the maximum capacity figures established by the

3. The relevant facts regarding this prior litigation, entitled
Jackson v. Hendrick, are set forth in the court of appeals
decision at A-20-21. (References to the Opinions of the courts
below are to the Appendix following petitioners’ brief.)

-3-

court in its first remedial decree. In pertinent part, Paragrap

The defendants shall set a maximu 5
for each of the three institutions fc
urpose of maintaining
reater than the rated level. For .
Olmesburg, the capac :
umber of usable cells.

Amended Complaint %4%34-35.

48 If the population exceeds this level, the
Court will consider for release the follow Gg
classes of inmates

(a) persons held for trial on misdemeanor

2sffenses;

(6) persons held in default € $3,0

gc not impose undue dganger toc

Amended Complaint Exh. c.4

Notwithstanding the series of remedial decrees and
stipulations in Jackson aimed at alleviating the conditions
determined to be unconstitutional as long ago as 1972, the
inmates at Holmesburg, according to the averments of the Amended
Complaint, continue to experience those precise conditions.
Although the maximum capacity of Holmesburg under current court
order is approximately 700, the inmate population has
substantially exceeded that number during the time relevant to
this litigation and is currently believed to be approximately
1,300, i.e., almost twice the number that may lawfully be

incarcerated there. Amended Complaint "41.° Despite twelve

4. The problem of overcrowding was a major issue as well at a
hearing before the lower court in Jackson in October 1980.
Following the hearing, the court issued an order which, as
modified, established a maximum capacity of 2,190 at the three
Philadelphia prisons; prohibited triple celling; prohibited
double celling after August 1, 1981; and established procedures
for the release of inmates held on bail until the prison
population was reduced to the rated capacity. The court's
orders, dismissing exceptions by the City of Philadelphia and
other defendants, were affirmed by the Commonwealth Court on
February 14, 1983. Jackson v. Hendrick, 72 Pa. Commw. 63, 456
A.2d 229 (1983).

5. Owing in large measure to the problem of overcrowding,
plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer, inter alia, from
inadequate screening of violent and chronic offenders; unsanitary
preparation and service of food; other hygienic inadequacies such
as insufficient bedding, towels, and toiletries; and inadequate
access to recreational facilities, work assignments, education
programs, library facilities, legal materials, religious

( CONTINUED )

ear c itigat in acxson, the vercrowaing and eprivations
resu > nq fr rT . have e ther per sted * +h it materia hanae

= la)
r worsened Amended Complaint 445.

'n 1982, the Harris plaintiffs commenced the instan

action pro se seeking monetary camages resulting from the
jJeprivation of their constitutional rights, and an injunction
preventing the Philadelphia defendants from continuing ¢t olate
their rights by placing them in conditions of confinement already
jeterminecd t be unconstitutional lefendants moved to dismiss
the Amended Complaint under Fed. R -av. F 12(b)(6 Despite

he fact that the Harris plaintiffs' claims did not arise until

based on res udicata and the variant of the abstention doctrine
ser < rer in Col rad River Water “onservat r D st i > r ted

services, and telephones. Amended Complaint #43. Moreover, as a
direct result of the overcrowding, plaintiffs have been subjected
to physical and psychological injury from violent attacks, sexual
assaults, and of physical violence by other inmates.

Amended Complaint #44.

,
x
|

t

o

‘?

Ww

)

6. “The present problem results from the fact that past

successive city administrations have avoided the inevitability oc
providing additional facilities through rationalization,
dJilatoriness and procrastination.” Jackson v. Hendrick, No. i80

~y

Misc. Docket, 1984, slip op. at 4 (Pa., Fiied October 17,

States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). The district court specifically
refused to dismiss on the basis of Younger.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the
district court's decision. The court of appeals determined that
the Harris piaintiffs could not have been parties to the Jackson
proceedings, nor could they have raised in those proceedings the
claims at issue here. (A-25.) Hence, the action was not barred
by res judicata. (A-26.) Moreover, the court of appeals held

that abstention under Colorado River was not warranted because

the test for application of the parallel litigation exception to

this Court's decision in McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268

(1910), was not satisfied:

The (state and federal) cases are not truly
parallel since the federal court plaintiffs
seek money damages while the state court
plaintiffs did not. The liability phase of
the state court case is long concluded, and
thus parallel litigation on liability even for
injunctive relief is not an issue.

(A-33.) On the other hand, the court of appeals agreed with the
district court that other forms of abstention, particularly
Younger abstention, did not apply:

Since the municipal and state officials are
defendants in the state proceeding resisting
the enforcement of federal constitutional
rights, rather than plaintiffs or prosecutors
seeking vindication of state law enforcement
policies, the trial court did not err in

briefed extensively below n Jicusssed at length 1 the ma

2pinion of the court f appea unger formed the basis for

tne opinior £ the dissenting 10dge the rt f appeais,

however, anc petitioners ask that certiorari be granted solely
nsider the applicability f the Younger doctrine

I. THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS BELOW FINDING JUNGER

C Y
ABSTENTION INAPPLICABLE DO NOT CONFLICT WITH PRIOR
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT BECAUSE THE ELEMENTS NECESSAR
FOR YOUNGER TO APPLY ARE NOT PRESENT HERI
Both the district court and the irt f appeals agree
the fundamental fact whict insels against ertiorari in thi
case: Younger abdstention is inappropriate here because none of
the elements warranting its application is present. Petitioner

Jid not commence a state proceeding against the Harris plainti

435 (1982). The Harris laintiffs do not, and did not, have an
3! i

proceeding. Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977). The

Harris plaintiffs are not seeking to enjoin an ongoing state

proceeding brought against them. Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S.

434, 444 (1977). Thus, the court of appeals decision presents no
conflict with this Court's decisions and, accordingly, certiorari
should not be granted.

A. No Important State Interest Is Presented By
The Philadelphia Defendants' Thirteen Years
Of Refusing To Remedy The Unconstitutional
Conditions of Confinement In Philadelphia
Prisons

Under Younger abstention, a federal court must defer to

an ongoing state court proceeding only “when important state

interests are involved. Middlesex County Ethics Committee v.

Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. at 432. The importance of the
State's interest is reflected in the nature of the state court

proceeding and the state's role in it. Id.; see also Illinois v.

General Electric Co., 683 F.2d 206, 212 (7th Cir. 1982), cert.
Genied, 461 U.S. 913 (1983) (Younger inapplicable where state had
not initiated “penalty action” against federal plaintiffs);

DeSpain v. Johnston, 731 F.2d 1171, 1177 n.14, 1179 (Sth Cir.

1984) (state's role in litigation significant in determining
state interest). In particular, Younger abstention has been
found to be

best suited to cases where federal plaintiffs
are trying to attack state enforcement

-9-

Q
D
n
.
’
oF
rh &
»

a —
ts in the state proceeding resisting
~ a t

e
the en rcement of federal constitutional
rignts, rather than plaintiffs or prosecutors
seeking vindication of state law enforcement
poiicies, the trial court did not err n

inger Harris and its progeny

A-29 footnote omitted Thus, petitioners’ resistance ¢
ect fy ne +he iv ner tut na 4it n< - the wr = the
maintain ime rates no state interest, and the rt cf appea
je m SO ruling was in accord with decisions of this Court

Q
;
-

f
,*)
;
s~
D
v)
7
a
ow
;
vs
y
n
Ww)
a
j
al
‘
“
@®
4
>
;
oO

a
mw
ha]
Qa
Vv
)
“"
@
J
mw
a |
,
~
LO
oO
Ww
or
"y
La)
QO
'
wa
4)
Fs)
YU
7
Pi
¢
,
mn
1
;
Oo
it)
|
0
2
@
|
,

(limiting population in county jail); Inmates of Suffolk County

;
y
-

,
J
m
3
®
‘
.
ey)
¢
7
7
om
,

of population in Charles Street Jail). Thus,

@
yw
+
wn
w
‘
D
)
U0
an]
w
)
&
2)
3
yn
,
5
ao
,
)
Qa
D
Nn

the Har

a |

is action involv

not warrant federal court abstentior

state lawsuit alone warrants federal abstention is particularly

weak where, as here, the federal interest involved -- vindicatior

§1983 -- is strong. See, e.g., United States v. City of

unjustified where federal interest outweighed state nterest
This Court has long recognized that

,
@
<
®
|

“4
t
|
oO
)
Ww
o
U
rt
oa)
~
wo
@
wa
£
m&
w
)
»
J
,
|
ne)
)
y
@

>
re)
y
ct
!
!
ct
©
‘ie
an)
,
@
t
;
> a
@
i“ @
i)
)
i @
'
a)
rH +
12 &
( .
w
N
oo
e!
@
‘
va

:
,

?
|
c
3
|
0
a)

7
@

leq
Pe)
—
4
W
,
N
nN
>
N
es)
4
’
WY

D

D
io
,

iw
)

section 1983 is being invoked by the Harris plaintiffs as

constitutional rights by defendants’ continued operation of an
unconstitutionally-overcrowded prison system. The mere fact that
a municipality, by definition, may have an interest in the
administration of a municipal facility is not sufficient to
Outweigh the powerful concerns underlying section 1983. See

Goldie's Bookstore v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 469 (9th Cir.

1984) (abstention “an extraordinary and narrow exception” to

federal court's weighty obligation to exercise jurisdiction when

relief is sought under section 1983); Johnson v. Kelly, 583 F.2d
1242, 1252 (3d Cir. 1978) (state's interest in tax revenues
7

insufficient to warrant abstention in section 1983 case).
Therefore, the minimal state interest embodied in the
Philadelphia defendants' opposition to state court efforts to
alleviate the conditions of confinement in Philadelphia prison
does not warrant dismissal of an action alleging cruel and

unusual punishment in those prisons.

7. Application of founger abstention on the facts of this case
would also create a conflict with other Opinions of this Court.
Where, as here, there is no pending state proceeding involving
the federal plaintiffs, a decision requiring the federal
plaintiffs to pursue state court remedies would be contrary to
this Court's decision in Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. at

500-16, in which an exhaustion requirement in section 1983
actions was specifically rejected. See also Monroe v. Pape, 365
U.S. 167, 183 (1961).

w

The Jackson Proceeding Does Not Afford An
a3 4 oP

.
Ypportunity For Respondents’ Feder
Claims To Be Raised In State Court

Younger abstention is not only inappropriate because
>f the lack of an important state interest being asserted by
petitioners in the state court, Dut also because the Jackson

~ . er 4 ~ tine i € -r
proceeding affords no opportunity for the Harris plaintiffs tc

itutional claims” is a significant element in determining

4°)
0
J
=
7
t
3
»
ct
<
T
)
a |
&
.
w
@
rh
@
Qa
a)
al
a
)
3
y
>
,
’
+
a
¢
mw
}
2
,
&
~
wn"
S
~
cr
J
@
Ww
'
&
+
a)

proceeding, federal courts must exercise their jurisdiction. Id.

serstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 108 n.9 (1975)).
In the Jackson case, commenced in 1971, plaintiffs

alleged that various Philadelphia officials violated their

constitutional rights by subjecting them to particular conditions

mh
Ww
c
om
3
®
Qa.
£
m
a
@
<
)
2)
3
44)
c
,
5
ie)

of confinement which piaintif
The Jackson plaintiffs sought injunctive relief only, and the
trial court rendered a verdict in their favor in 1972, which was

affirmed by the highest court of the state in 1974. All

substantive consideration of the claims against the Jackson

defendants ceased on that date. The only issue considered by the
Jackson court from 1974 to the present is whether the Jackson
defendants are in compliance with that court's series of remedial
orders.

The Harris plaintiffs allege that their constitutional
rights have been violated in a different way. They claim that,
beginning in 1980, the several defendants -- with full knowledge
that the conditions of Philadelphia's prisons had been adjudged
unconstitutional and in violation of court orders to remedy those
conditions -- subjected them to conditions of confinement which
violated the federal constitution. The Harris plaintiffs seek
not only injunctive relief, which potentially could parallel the
state court's orders that the Philadelphia defendants cease their
ongoing violations of the rights of inmates incarcerated in their
prisons, but monetary damages as well to compensate them for the
constitutional injuries they have suffered.®

The Harris plaintiffs’ claims could not have been heard

by the Jackson court initially because their claims did not arise

8. The Harris plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the
particular conduct of petitioners -- i.e., subjecting plaintiffs
to unconstitutional conditions with full knowledge, and in direct
contravention, of the Jackson decrees -- violates the Consti-
tution. Because this issue could not have been adjudicated in
the Jackson lawsuit, abstention is not warranted by the claim for
declaratory relief. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452
(1974).

irmance of t!

s

Ww

tw

e

-

Philadelphia pri

rn

incarcerated in -

Harris S$ cannot have

ciass, and the

9. The court of appeals
plaintiffs’ claims were n
judicata and did not warra
P. 12(b)(6). (A-23-26; A-
appeals specifically stated
class even had a cause of ac
conditions in Holmesburg in
subjected to those condit

Ae?) ing

mivea +

se

i

challenged this
collaterally attack
plaintiffs’
court.

an
that h

claims were,

lS,

the Pennsylvania Supreme

Yar

the

a liabilit

Furth

Ons,

miscnaracterizati

have been, par

Drought by the

71-2437, slip op.

perscns incarcerated in

None of the Har

al

prisons before 1980. Ther

been, and are not, member

he
ine

>

he

a

vt rh

a F

oOo sucn c
tioners

Cannot n

een, before

ris plain

(a
the
lass member

a)
ti

Aawr

'
wWwusk &

‘Ss

v

is

Jackson court

y phase of
ermore,
the

tie

e
>

named

Nh mt
rh
Ww ~ g
0

al

as
ave

Ow
the Harri

tne

Ss
Jack

There is no identity of persons or parties

between the present class members and the

named P}gintifts in the Common Pleas Court

action. (A-25).

There is simply no rational means by which the Harris
plaintiffs’ constitutional claims may be heard in litigation to
which they are not parties and which has already proceeded to

judgment and completed appellate review. DeSpain v. Johnston,

731 F.2d at 1179 (“the state court proceeding was ‘pending’
within the meaning of Younger ... until the appellate proceedings

were exhausted"); J.P. v. DeSanti, 653 F.2d 1080, 1085 (6th Cir.

1981) (federal court did not abstain because juveniles’ challenge

was to state court's post-adjudication use of their compiled

10. Petitioners’ assertion that respondents admitted in their
Amended Complaint that they were members of the Jackson class is
incorrect. First, respondents cannot “admit™ the truth of a fact
which, on the record, is plainly incorrect. Thus, where, as
here, the record demonstrates that the Harris plaintiffs were nct
members of the Jackson class, no “admission” to the contrary can
be controlling or probative. Moreover, the Harris plaintiffs’
assertion, in paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint, that they
were included among the intended beneficiaries of the injunctive
relief ordered by the Jackson court was not intended as an
admission that they were members of the Jackson class, but rather
as an assertion that they, as persons subject to conditions
adjudged unconstitutional in 1972, were entitled to the benefits
of that adjudication and accompanying injunctive relief. To the
extent that the challenged averment of paragraph 50 may be
pivotal in determining whether respondents were in fact members
of the Jackson class, respondents respectfully note their
intention to seek leave to amend the complaint to clarify that
they were not members of the Jackson class but were entitled to
the benefits of the injunctive relief ordered in that case.

judicial proceedings - jingly, even though the state court
has retained jurisdiction Ower the remedy in Jackson, Younger
abstention is inappropriate because federal court jurisdiction

which have been or could have been heard in state court.”
Ge The Harris Plaintiffs Are ot Seekiv7 7 To
Enjoin Any State Court Lawsuit Or Proceecing
ee ete _ ———— a - — a — — os
In each action in which this Court has required
&oedAera?’ aure teantinn on th . - - +h Yeuneer nrincin a
federal court abstention on the bdDasis or he Younger principles,

rh
”
a
@
’
w&
,
Oo
,
&
;
cv?
rw
mm
w
J
w
D
|
@
Q
t
A)
w
@
ie}
rh
4
4
40
‘
m&
2
)
£
‘
ti)
,
0
@
>
oO
)
’
7
D

application of a state statute alleged to be unconstitutiona:.

challenged constitutionality of Texas child custody iaws, seeking
ll. Even if this Court were to order at Younger abstention
applied to respondents’ claims for injunctive relief, such an
Order would not result in dismissal of the Harris action
Respondents would continue to pursue their ciaims for monetary
damages against the Philadelphia defendants and their claims for
monetary and injunctive relief against defendants Marks and
Waldman. Such a result would place the district court in the

o&
oO
-~ ;
i)
mr
2
"

«
incongruous position of being able to find petitioners 4
violating respondents’ constitutional rights, Dut with
jurisdiction to enjoin the unconstitutional behavior. nis
incongruity further emphasizes th difference between the Harris
plaintiffs’ ciaims and those r: n Jackson. Cf. Williams v.
Red Bank Board of Education, 662 1008, 1024 (3d Cir. 1981
ripen only after

nc?

J
a ae

(plaintitts’ claims for damages ul
proceedings were completec).

to enjoin Texas officials from proceeding against them under the

challenged statute); Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (1975)

(federal plaintiff sought to prevent, by federal intervention,

enforcement of a state court judgment declaring its theater a
nuisance). In each case, a district court's decision not to
abstain created the spectre that a federal court, if it found for
the plaintiff on the merits, would be placed in the position of
rdering a state court -- or officials seeking to enforce state
law in state court -- to refrain from exercising authority over

the scate defendant/federal plaintiff. Williams v. Red Bank

Board of Education, 662 F.2d 1008, 1017-18 (34 Cir. 1981). In

each such situation, comity justified “the Younger doctrine of

Snintervention” because federal intervention improperly

suggested federal court superiority in the vindication of

constitutional rights and disregard of the state interests

pursued by the challenged statute or proceeding. Juidice v.
Vail, 430 S. at 334; see alsc Huffman v. Pursue, Ltc., 420 U.S.

at 609 ("Federal post-trial intervention, in a fashion designed

rm

to annul the results of a state trial ... deprives the States o
a function which quite legitimately is left to them....")
Here, however, the Harris plaintiffs do not seek to

annul the results of the Jackson trial nor to enjoin the state

courts from enforcing its 1972 order declaring Philadelphia

appropriate in this context, and the decision of the court of

appeais on this issue was consistent with the prior decisions f

D. Where The Essential Elements For Younger
Abstention Are Not Present, This Court Has
Refused To Grant Certiorari To Consider
The Younger Issue

The courts below held that abstention is not proper

here, because the Jackson proceeding does not involve the

enforcement of state law, does not provide an opportunity for the
Harris plaintiffs to raise their federal claims, and will not be
enjoined by the Harris court. This Court has previously
considered whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari in
@ case invoiving very similar facts. In that case, Ramos

Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980), the court of appeals had
also declined to order abstention, and this Court denied the
defendant state officials’ petition for writ of certiorari. 45
U.S. 1041 (1981).

In Ramos, an inmate at a Colorado State Penitentiary
filed a class action lawsuit in federal court challenging the

conditions of confinement at the prison. The district court had

plaintiff claimed that order of state human rights commission
concerned area preempted by federal law, interference with state
administrative and judicial process represented by possibility of
federal court's enjoining enforcement of order not substantial
enough to justify abstention).

1@ aosta 5 Aamos raw.iey
iar t ty mmiss ers 44 F.2 28 (6th r 1964), ar
4 wr mates a 4 nty ja br gr @ section i983

4- allenging the 3 ns of confinement in the jail,
€ f appea eversec the distr tc r S Cismissa ‘
ea he 4 c 3¢e efendants i Crawiey hac

argue a the district irt should abstain from deciding the
mates Rims nm the ground that a state court decision,
Dseque afftirmec by a4 State appellate court, had rderec
Sure of the facility until a new jail was completed.
efenda ; laimecd t be attempting t compiy with tne state
t's jer The irt f appeais refused to apply Younger,
sespite the existence of the parallel state proceeding:
wever, Younger and its progeny all have a
procedural posture which is very different
from our case. in the typical Younger case,
he federal plaintiff is a defendant in
nmgoing or threatened state court proceedings

seeking to enjoin continuation of those state

proceedings. Moreover, the basis for the

federal relief claimed is generally available

to the would-be federal plaintiff as a defense

mn the state proceedings.... In our case, the

federal plaintiff's are also plaintiffs in the

state court action. In addition, the
13 international Prisoners’ Union v. Rizzo, 356 F. Supp. 806

E.D. Pa. 1973) is not to the contrary. There, the complaint was

filed less than one year after the trial court's decision in

Jackson and
adjudicated

aised precisely the same claims that had just been
in Jackson.

"

a;

se

te

*

er

_

re

guire the
4
iladelphi

st

~
.
i

Ww

98

ta
@
rh
@

re
ns

ve
wai

-

0

the ack
4efendant

a4 ver °|
3 Complai
mecying s&s

Ss

a
n

a
w
"

nave c
nn ah
ig

Berrvyvt
— a
t appropr

w

w
T

ma the
“om
if a
ed th
temr
rders
sec Ct
ie e
er ve
a rer
blems
Q
, 411
e, de
trati

Ww

~y

ecr
+e
>
AeA
s 4
re
Aered
7

was

indicate prejudgment of issue making Younger abstention
inapplicable) .+4

Moreover, in Scott v. Germano, 381 U.S. 407 (1965) a

reapportionment case, this Court held that where state-
adjudicated constitutional violations are left uncorrected
considerations of comity do not bar federal equitable relief. In
Scott, this Court required only that the district court give the
state authority a reasonable period of time to remedy its
unconstitutional procedures before the district court could order

relief. 381 U.S. at 409. Here, the local authorities have been

14. Moreover, much of petitioners’ argument is based on matters
de hors the Amended Complaint, viz., fragments of the record in
Jackson v. Hendrick which are supposed to demonstrate the
positive strides taken by state officials since the inception of
this federal suit toward the elimination of overcrowding and
other oppressive conditions of confinement in Holmesburg. See
Petitioners’ Brief at ll.

The Harris plaintiffs have had no opportunity to counter the
representations made by defendants regarding their recent efforts
and changes. If post-complaint occurrences are to be considered,
both Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and prin-
ciples of fairness dictate that notice should be provided to
plaintiffs in order that they may produce counter-affidavits. In
short, the Court cannot base its decision solely on the city's
representations regarding the current state of the record.
Petitioners’ casual references to matters outside the Amended
Complaint misled Judge Garth, dissenting in the court of appeals,
into believing that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has directed
compliance with court orders concerning, inter alia, population
caps and multiple-celling. In fact, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court, by staying the Jackson court's order of June 22, 1984, has
relieved petitioners of any immediate duty to limit population or
avoid the multiple celling of inmates in Holmesburg prison.

-27-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0936%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.