H. Beatty Chadwick v. James Janecka, Warden, Delaware County Prison the District Attorney of County of Delaware the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania v. Barbara Jean Crowther Chadwick, (Intervenor in District Court) Barbara Jean Crowther Chadwick

This appeal was taken from an order granting a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Mr. H. Beatty Chadwick under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner has applied eight times to the courts of Pennsylvania and six times to the federal district court for release from incarceration for civil contempt for refusing to comply with an order in a matrimonial proceeding directing him to pay over $2.5 million into an escrow account. In the present case, the District Court concluded that the petitioner had exhausted state remedies even though he had not applied to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for review of the adverse decision of the Superior Court. In the view of the District Court, it was sufficient that the petitioner subsequently submitted a habeas petition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 721. With respect to the merits of the present proceeding, the District Court accepted the state courts' repeated findings that the petitioner is able to comply with the order directing him to pay the funds into escrow, but the District Court nevertheless held that the length of petitioner's confinement — then almost seven years — meant that the contempt order had lost its coercive effect and that confinement for civil contempt was no longer constitutional. On appeal, the petitioner defends that decision of the District Court but does not contest the state courts' findings that he is able to comply with the underlying order but simply refuses to do so. We reverse.

In November 1992, Mrs. Barbara Chadwick filed for divorce in the Delaware County (Pennsylvania) Court of Common Pleas. During an equitable distribution conference in February 1993, Mr. Chadwick informed the state court and Mrs. Chadwick that he had unilaterally transferred $2,502,000.00 of the marital estate to satisfy an alleged debt to Maison Blanche, Ltd., a Gibraltar partnership.

It was later discovered that (1) one of the principals of Maison Blanche had returned $869,106.00 from Gibraltar to an American bank account in Mr. Chadwick's name and that these funds had then been used to purchase three insurance annuity contracts; (2) $995,726.41 had been transferred to a Union Bank account in Switzerland in Mr. Chadwick's name; and (3) $550,000.00 in stock certificates that the petitioner claimed he had transferred to an unknown barrister in England to forward to Maison Blanche had never been received. The state court then entered a freeze order on the marital assets on April 29, 1994.

In May 1994, Mr. Chadwick redeemed the annuity contracts and deposited the funds in a Panamanian bank. After a hearing on July 22, 1994, the court determined that Mr. Chadwick's transfer of the money was an attempt to defraud Mrs. Chadwick and the court. At that time, the court ordered petitioner to return the $2,502,000.00 to an account under the jurisdiction of the court, to pay $75,000.00 for Mrs. Chadwick's attorney's fees and costs, to surrender his passport, and to remain within the jurisdiction. Mr. Chadwick refused to comply, and Mrs. Chadwick thereafter filed a petition to have him held in civil contempt. Mr. Chadwick failed to appear at any of the three contempt hearings, but his attorney was present. The court found Mr. Chadwick in contempt of the July 22, 1994, order and issued a bench warrant for his arrest.

After learning of the bench warrant, Mr. Chadwick fled the jurisdiction but was arrested and detained on April 5, 1995. The state court determined that Mr. Chadwick had the present ability to comply with the terms of the July 22, 1994, order and set bail at $3,000,000. Mr. Chadwick could have been released from custody either by posting bail or by complying with the July 22, 1994, order. To date, he has done neither.

Since his confinement, Mr. Chadwick has applied eight times to the state courts1 and six times to the federal court2 to gain release from incarceration. After the trial court denied his sixth state habeas petition, the Superior Court affirmed the decision on April 23, 1997, stating:

Instantly, appellant cites to the fact that he has been incarcerated since April 5, 1995. He claims the length of his incarceration, his age, poor health, inability to pursue his career and repeated hearings where he has refused compliance suggests that there is no possibility that he will comply with the order. Appellant admits that no court in this jurisdiction has adopted this test and we will not do so here. While it seems reasonable that at some point a temporal benchmark should be adopted to determine when contempt incarceration becomes impermissibly punitive we think that it is for our high court to make such a determination.

Chadwick v. Janecka, No. 00-CV-1130, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21732, at *14-15 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 11, 2000) (internal citation omitted). Despite the Superior Court's invitation that the petitioner ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to decide the point at which incarceration for contempt becomes punitive, the petitioner did not file an allocatur petition in the state supreme court.

Later, on July 18, 1997, petitioner filed another petition for federal habeas relief, which was dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The District Court wrote:

Although Mr. Chadwick has forfeited his right to seek Supreme Court review of the Superior Court's April 23, 1997 denial of his sixth state habeas petition, see Pa.R.App.P. 1113(a) (petition for allowance of appeal must be filed within 30 days of order), he would not be barred from filing a seventh state habeas petition based on his present confinement of approximately thirty-seven months. Under Pennsylvania law, Mr. Chadwick can file a seventh state habeas petition in the Court of Common Pleas and exhaust his appellate remedies, see 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 931, or petition directly in the Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceedings. See 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 721(1). But unless the issues presented in the federal habeas petition have all been first presented to the Supreme Court, the district court may not exercise jurisdiction. See Lambert, 134 F.3d at 515 (requiring "complete exhaustion"); Swanger, 750 F.2d at 295 (raising claim before Supreme Court in petition for allowance of appeal satisfies exhaustion requirement).

Chadwick v. Andrews, No. 97-4680, 1998 WL 218026, at *5 (E.D.Pa. April 30, 1998) (emphasis added). Because Mr. Chadwick had not sought review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on the issue presented in his federal petition, that petition was dismissed.

In September 1999, Mr. Chadwick filed a pro se Application for Leave to File Original Process (his seventh state habeas action) with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Mrs. Chadwick sought permission to intervene, and opposed the application and the state habeas petition. In a per curiam order dated February 8, 2000, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the request to file original process and the request to file an answer, but the court denied the petition for habeas corpus.

On March 2, 2000, Mr. Chadwick filed the instant petition for federal habeas relief. The District Court granted that petition on January 3, 2002, but stayed its order for 30 days to "allow appeal and application for further stay of this court's order to the appellate court." Chadwick v. Janecka, No. 00-1130, 2002 WL 12292, at *8, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10, at *27 (E.D.Pa.Jan.3, 2002). Mrs. Chadwick took this timely appeal. By order dated January 31, 2002, we granted Mrs. Chadwick's motion for a stay pending appeal. The United States Supreme Court thereafter denied Mr. Chadwick's Application for Enlargement and to Vacate Stay.

The first issue we must address is whether Mrs. Chadwick has standing to proceed on appeal. Mr. Chadwick argues that because Mrs. Chadwick was an intervenor in the District Court, she lacks Article III standing. He further argues that, because the respondents — the warden, the Delaware County District Attorney, and the Attorney General of the Commonwealth — did not appeal, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

The United States Supreme Court has stated that "an intervenor's right to continue a suit in the absence of the party on whose side the intervention was permitted is contingent upon a showing by the intervenor that he fulfills the requirements of Art[icle] III." Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 68, 106 S.Ct. 1697, 90 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986). Under Article III of the United States Constitution, the judicial power extends only to "Cases" and "Controversies." As noted in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 771, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000):

a plaintiff must meet three requirements in order to establish Article III standing. See, e.g., Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-181, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000). First, he must demonstrate "injury in fact" — a harm that is both "concrete" and "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Second, he must establish causation — a "fairly ... traceable" connection between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged conduct of the defendant. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 41, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976). And third, he must demonstrate redressability — a "substantial likelihood" that the requested relief will remedy the alleged injury in fact. Id.

See also, e.g., Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United For Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982); In re Grand Jury, 111 F.3d 1066, 1071 (3d Cir.1997).

We have little difficulty concluding that Mrs. Chadwick meets all of these requirements here. First, Mrs. Chadwick clearly has suffered and continues to suffer an injury in fact that is both "concrete" and "actual," "not conjectural or hypothetical," Mr. Chadwick has placed a substantial sum of money beyond the reach of the state court before whom the matrimonial case is pending. If the decision of the District Court is affirmed, Mr. Chadwick will be released from jail and will be relieved of the pressure to return this money for equitable distribution. Second, Mrs. Chadwick's injury is unquestionably traceable to Mr. Chadwick's refusal to comply with the state court order under which he is being held. The District Court's order would erase the effect of the state court order requiring the return of the funds and would significantly reduce Mrs. Chadwick's share of the marital estate. Third, Mrs. Chadwick's injury may be redressed by a favorable decision here. A reversal of the District Court's order granting Mr. Chadwick's petition would require him to remain in prison until he returns the $2.5 million to the state court for later distribution.

In arguing that Mrs. Chadwick lacks standing, the petitioner relies principally on Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 106 S.Ct. 1697, 90 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986), but that case is easily distinguishable. The Diamond case involved a constitutional attack on an Illinois statute restricting abortions. Id. at 56, 106 S.Ct. 1697. Diamond, a pediatrician, successfully moved to intervene in the District Court, based on his conscientious objection to abortion and his status as a pediatrician and the father of a minor daughter. Id. at 66, 106 S.Ct. 1697. When the District Court permanently enjoined provisions of the statute and the Court of Appeals affirmed, the State of Illinois did not appeal to the Supreme Court, but Diamond did. Id. at 62-63, 106 S.Ct. 1697. The Court held that Diamond could not maintain the appeal as the sole appellant because he lacked Article III standing. Id. at 64-71, 106 S.Ct. 1697. Noting that Illinois, by not appealing, had accepted the decision that its statute was unconstitutional, the Court observed that even if it upheld the statute, Diamond, a private citizen, could not compel the state to enforce it. Id. at 64-65, 106 S.Ct. 1697. In addition, the Court explained, Diamond could not establish that he had or would suffer injury in fact. Id. at 65-71, 106 S.Ct. 1697. Diamond argued that if the statute were upheld, there would be fewer abortions and greater demand for his services as a pediatrician, but the Court dismissed this argument as speculative. Id. at 66, 106 S.Ct. 1697. The Court likewise rejected Diamond's contention that he had standing because of his interest in the standards of medical practice relating to abortion. Id. at 66-67. The Court stated that Diamond's abstract interest in the issue of abortion could not substitute for the concrete injury demanded by Article III. Id. In response to Diamond's claim of standing as the father of a minor daughter, the Court noted that the validity of the parental notification provision of the statute was not at issue in the appeal and Diamond had not provided factual support to show that the provisions that were at issue threatened him with any concrete injury. Id. at 67, 106 S.Ct. 1697. Finally, the Court held that Diamond could not assert any constitutional rights of unborn fetuses and that the award of fees against him in the District Court could not "fairly be traced to the Illinois Abortion Law." Id. at 70, 106 S.Ct. 1697.

Other than the fact that Diamond and Mrs. Chadwick are both intervenors, the two cases have little in common. Mrs. Chadwick, as noted, has a direct financial interest: she wants Mr. Chadwick to produce a very substantial sum of money in which she claims a share. By contrast, Diamond's claim that upholding the Illinois law would result in more live births and thus increase his income as a pediatrician was highly speculative and an obvious makeweight. Diamond was a classic case of an attempt to litigate an abstract legal issue; the present case involves a concrete monetary interest.

Mr. Chadwick argues, however, that Mrs. Chadwick has no concrete injury at stake because "even if she were somehow to secure a reversal of the district court's order, the respondents would still be required to release Mr. Chadwick, because they did not appeal." Appellee's Br. at 21. We reject this highly technical argument and find Martin-Trigona v. Shiff, 702 F.2d 380 (2d Cir.1983), instructive on the question whether someone other than the legal custodian of a prisoner may appeal an adverse decision in a habeas proceeding. In Martin-Trigona, a bankruptcy judge ordered a debtor imprisoned for civil contempt when he refused to submit to examination by the trustees. Id. at 381. The debtor filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the District Court granted the motion, and the trustees appealed. Id. The Second Circuit held that the trustees were the real parties in interest because "[t]hey ha[d] a legitimate interest in seeing to it that Martin-Trigona testifie[d] to the location of certain assets, books, and records that are necessary to the administration of the estates." Id. at 386. Because the trustees' interests were sufficiently affected by the District Court's order, the Second Circuit held that the trustees had standing to appeal even though they were not the custodian of the debtor. Id.; Cf. United States ex rel. Thom v. Jenkins, 760 F.2d 736 (7th Cir.1985) (private party who prosecuted contempt proceedings against judgment debtor was respondent and appellee on appeal of debtor's habeas petition following jailing for contempt). Martin-Trigona is analogous to the case at bar because Mrs. Chadwick — like the trustees — is the party who has "a legitimate interest in seeing to it," 702 F.2d at 386, that Mr. Chadwick returns a substantial portion of the marital estate to the court. We find the decision in Martin-Trigona to be persuasive.

The only case cited by Mr. Chadwick in support of his position is far afield. In Carter v. Rafferty, 826 F.2d 1299, 1303-04 (3d Cir.1987), the District Court granted habeas petitions filed by two prisoners who had been tried and convicted together in state court. The habeas respondents appealed, but their notice of appeal "specifically limited itself to the order releasing [one of the prisoners]." Id. at 1303. Noting that what was then Rule 3(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure3 required that a notice of appeal "designate the judgment, order, or part thereof appealed from," the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the portion of the District Court's judgment relating to the other prisoner because the appellants had failed to specify that they were appealing that part of the judgment. Id. at 1304. Thus, Carter does not stand for the proposition that only the person with the keys to the jail has standing to appeal an order granting a writ of habeas corpus. Rather, Carter holds that only the portions of an order specified in a notice of appeal may be challenged in the appeal. We accordingly hold that Mrs. Chadwick has Article III standing to pursue the present appeal. We have considered all of Mr. Chadwick's standing arguments, and we find them to be devoid of merit.

Mrs. Chadwick argues that Mr. Chadwick did not exhaust all available state court remedies before presenting his claims to the federal court in his habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Mrs. Chadwick makes two exhaustion arguments. First, she argues that Mr. Chadwick did not fairly present to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court the same claims that he raised in his federal habeas petition. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-76, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971). Specifically, Mrs. Chadwick urges reversal because the period of confinement listed in Mr. Chadwick's application for leave to file original process before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court — "over 50 months" (i.e., four years and two months) — and the period of confinement for which the District Court granted habeas — "nearly seven years" — are not the same. Second, Mrs. Chadwick argues that Mr. Chadwick's application for leave to file original process did not fairly present the claims to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court where, although it has original jurisdiction in habeas matters,4 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will ordinarily refer habeas petitions to the appropriate lower court, unless there exists "imperative necessity or apparent reason why expedition is desirable or required." See Commonwealth ex rel. Paylor v. Claudy, 366 Pa. 282, 287, 77 A.2d 350 (1951).

Although Mrs. Chadwick would have us decide the question of exhaustion, we decline to do so here because, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Pub.L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (enacted April 24, 1996), we may deny a habeas petition on the merits even though state remedies may not have been exhausted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2); see also Pennsylvania ex rel. Craig v. Maroney, 348 F.2d 22, 33 (3d Cir.1965); In re Ernst, 294 F.2d 556, 561-62 (3d Cir.1961).

Turning to the merits,5 we must first address the proper scope of review in this case. The parties dispute whether the standard of review set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) applies here.6

Relying on Everett v. Beard, 290 F.3d 500, 507-08 (3d Cir.2002); Appel v. Horn, 250 F.3d 203, 209-12 (3d Cir.2001); and Hameen v. Delaware, 212 F.3d 226, 248 (3d Cir.2000), Mr. Chadwick argues that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is inapplicable in this case because the "state supreme court, after accepting Mr. Chadwick's original habeas corpus petition for adjudication on its merits, denied relief without any statement of reasons at all." Appellee's Br. at 33. According to Mr. Chadwick, under these circumstances, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) "simply does not apply." Appellee's Br. at 33. We reject this argument, which is contrary to Supreme Court precedent and misinterprets our court's prior decisions.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)(emphasis added), if a state prisoner's habeas claim "was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings," our standard of review is narrow: we may not reverse "unless the adjudication of the claim ... resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal Law ...." In Hameen, we held that the petitioner had properly exhausted the claim that his Eighth Amendment rights had been violated because two of the aggravating circumstances found to support the death penalty were duplicative. 212 F.3d at 246-47. We concluded, however, that the Delaware Supreme Court "did not pass on [the petitioner's] Eighth Amendment constitutional duplicative aggravating circumstances argument, even though it had the opportunity to do so." Id. at 248. Accordingly, the Hameen panel held that this claim had not been "adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings" and that the restrictive standard of review in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) did not apply. 212 F.3d at 248.

Appel followed Hameen, stating that "when, although properly preserved by the defendant, the state court has not reached the merits of a claim thereafter presented to a federal habeas court, the deferential standards provided by AEDPA ... do not apply." 250 F.3d at 210. The Appel panel held that the petitioner had properly presented in the state courts a claim of the constructive denial of counsel but that the state courts had misconstrued the claim as one of the ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 210-12. Observing that "[t]he two claims, of course, are different," id. at 210, the panel held that the constructive denial claim had not been decided by the state courts and that the restrictive standards of § 2254(d) did not apply. Id. at 211.

Finally, the Everett court, relying on Hameen, 290 F.3d at 508, held that the § 2254(d) standards did not apply because the state courts had not adjudicated the petitioner's properly exhausted claim that his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel had been violated but instead had decided only that his rights under state law had not been abridged. See id. at 516.

Hameen, Appel, and Everett stand for the proposition that, if an examination of the opinions of the state courts shows that they misunderstood the nature of a properly exhausted claim and thus failed to adjudicate that claim on the merits, the deferential standards of review in AEDPA do not apply. Hameen, Appel, and Everett did not deal with summary dispositions — but Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 120 S.Ct. 727, 145 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000), did.

In Weeks, the petitioner "presented 47 assignments of error in his direct appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court." 528 U.S. at 231, 120 S.Ct. 727. The state supreme court rejected number 44 without explanation. Reviewing this claim, the Fourth Circuit recognized that the AEDPA standards do not apply when a state court has not adjudicated a claim on the merits, Weeks v. Angelone, 176 F.3d 249, 258 (4th Cir.1999), but the Fourth Circuit held that "[w]here, as here, the state supreme court has adjudicated a claim on the merits but has given no indication of how it reached its decision, a federal habeas court must still apply the AEDPA standards of review." Id. at 259. Applying those standards, the Fourth Circuit denied the application for a certificate and dismissed the habeas petition.

The United States Supreme Court reviewed the claim set out in assignment of error 44 and affirmed. See 528 U.S. at 231, 120 S.Ct. 727. After explaining why there had been no constitutional violation, the Court wrote:

Because petitioner seeks a federal writ of habeas corpus from a state sentence, we must determine whether 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) precludes such relief. The Court of Appeals below held that it did. 176 F.3d, at 261. We agree. Section 2254(d) prohibits federal habeas relief on any claim "adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings," unless that adjudication resulted in a decision that was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d) and (1) (1994 ed., Supp. III). For the reasons stated above, it follows a fortiori that the adjudication of the Supreme Court of Virginia affirming petitioner's conviction and sentence neither was "contrary to," nor did it involve an "unreasonable application of," any of our decisions.

528 U.S. at 237, 120 S.Ct. 727. Thus, the Supreme Court clearly held that the § 2254(d) standards apply when a state supreme court rejects a claim without giving any "indication of how it reached its decision." 176 F.3d at 259.

Needless to say, if Hameen, Appel, and Everett conflict with Weeks, the former must give way, but we see no such conflict. Hameen, Appel, and