The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Caputo
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter, Amend or Correct the Judgment of March 13, 2006 (Doc. 93). For the reasons set forth below, I will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.
On October 16, 1997, Plaintiffs filed a petition for review in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, challenging the legality of a ballot question scheduled to be submitted to Pennsylvania voters in November 1997. The proposed ballot question read:
Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require a unanimous recommendation of the Board of Pardons before the Governor can pardon or commute the death sentence of an individual sentenced in a criminal case to death or life imprisonment, to require only a majority vote of the Senate to approve the Governor's appointments to the Board, and to substitute a crime victim for an attorney and a corrections expert for a penologist as Board members?
Plaintiffs argued that the ballot question violated various provisions of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.
On November 4, 1997, prior to any ruling by the Commonwealth Court, the ballot question was presented to and approved by Pennsylvania voters. The Court will refer to the resulting changes in the Pennsylvania Constitution as "the 1997 Amendments."
On November 12, 1997, Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 5, 1998. (Doc. 9.) On January 15, 1998, the Court granted a joint motion to remand the state law claims and to stay the federal claims pending resolution of the state law claims. (Doc. 11.) While the Commonwealth Court found for Plaintiffs, Defendants prevailed upon appeal. See Pennsylvania Prison Soc. v. Commonwealth, 727 A.2d 632, 635 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999), rev'd, 776 A.2d 971 (Pa. 2001).
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 29, 2002. (Doc. 22.) Plaintiffs alleged that the 1997 amendments violate the following provisions of the United States Constitution: the rights of life prisoners and prisoners under death sentence under the Due Process Clause (Count I); the Ex Post Facto Clause (Count II); the Equal Protection Clause (Count III); Pennsylvania voters' rights under the Due Process Clause (Count IV); the Eighth Amendment (Counts V and VI); and the Guarantee Clause (Count VII). Plaintiffs also brought claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution (Counts VII and VIII).
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' second amended complaint on August 12, 2002. (Doc. 24.) On March 6, 2003, the Court issued a memorandum opinion granting Defendants' motion in part, and denying Defendants' motion in part. (Doc. 43.) The Court dismissed Counts III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII, as well as the portion of Count I regarding the due process rights of inmates with life sentences. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the due process claims of inmates under death sentences, as well as Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim under the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Both parties filed motions for reconsideration of the Court's March 6, 2003 memorandum opinion. (Docs. 44, 47.) On May 5, 2003, the Court issued a memorandum opinion denying Plaintiffs' motion and granting Defendants' motion in part, and denying Defendants' motion in part. (Doc. 52.) The Court determined that Plaintiffs are not entitled to present facts in support of an argument that individual members of the Board of Pardons ("Board") are biased, but allowed Plaintiffs to pursue the argument that the inclusion of a crime victim on the Board impermissibly introduces decision-maker bias into the parole process. Id.
On August 19, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 80) and a misfiled Brief in Support (Doc. 81). Following instructions from the Court to refile, on August 23, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 82) and Brief in Support (Doc. 83). That same day, Plaintiffs previous filings were terminated by the Court. Then, on September 13, 2005, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 84) and Brief in Support (Doc. 85). The parties also drafted a Stipulations of Fact (Doc. 86-2).
On March 13, 2006, the Court issued a memorandum opinion ("March 13th Order") (Doc. 91) addressing the cross motions for summary judgment, in which the Court granted both motions in part and denied them in part. The Court determined that Defendants' were entitled to summary judgment with regard to Plaintiffs' remaining due process claims, as well as Plaintiffs' Ex Post Facto claims concerning the inclusion of a crime victim on the Board. With regard to Plaintiffs' Ex Post Facto claim concerning the change in voting requirements for the Board, as applied to life-sentenced prisoners, the Court determined that Plaintiffs' were entitled to summary judgment.
On March 29, 2006, Plaintiffs filed the present motion to alter, amend or correct the Court's March 13th Order. (Doc. 93.) This motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition.
Plaintiffs request that the Court alter, amend or correct the judgment entered by the Court in its March 13th Order pursuant to Rule 60(a), or alternatively Rule ...