Filed Date: Nov. 1, 2023
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a class action lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendant, the Borough of Pottstown, from closing the College Drive Encampment where unsheltered people lived in violation of their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
On November 1, 2023, the plaintiffs—non-profit organization Better Days Ahead and two unhoused individuals, represented by the Community Justice Project and Legal Aid of Southeastern PA—brought this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment finding that the Borough of Pottstown’s plan to enclose the College Drive Encampment was cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment and was a “state-created danger” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs asked the court to enjoin the Borough of Pottstown from closing the College Drive Encampment unless the Encampment residents were given adequate alternative shelter. The plaintiffs also asked the court for a trial by jury. The case was assigned to District Judge Mia Roberts Perez.
The complaint alleged that the Borough of Pottstown did not have enough shelter beds to house all its unsheltered individuals, so most unhoused residents had no choice but to sleep outside, and that the Pottstown Police Department had used the threat of criminal sanctions to remove unhoused people from both Borough-owned and privately-owned land. It specifically alleged that in October 2023, the Borough of Pottstown put up signs near the College Drive Encampment stating that using the property to erect a tent or encampment or to live, sleep, or stay would not be permitted after December 1, 2023. Furthermore, the complaint alleged that the Pottstown Police Department began to threaten to cite College Drive Encampment residents for criminal trespass if they remained at the Encampment after December 1, 2023.
On November 2, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The court held an evidentiary hearing and argument on November 16, 2023 and November 20, 2023 to consider the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. On November 20, 2023, the court ordered that the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Better Days Ahead was denied, finding that the organization had standing to pursue claims because it was sufficiently demonstrated that the defendant’s conduct would frustrate the organization’s mission and require it to divert its resources. In the same order, the court dismissed one of the named plaintiffs for purposes of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction because he was no longer residing in the encampment at issue and, as such, lacked standing for purposes of the motion. On November 22, 2023, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
On November 28, 2023, the court denied in part and granted in part the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. It ordered that the Borough of Pottstown may take steps to close the College Drive Encampment, but that it could not do so through the imposition of criminal penalties. It specifically stated that the Borough was preliminarily enjoined from “issuing any criminal citations, arrests or fines or threats to cite, arrest, or fine the unhoused resists of the College Drive Encampment” who could not obtain shelter elsewhere. In its November 28, 2023 memorandum, the court analogized the present case to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), explaining that Boise’s ordinances against “camping” and “disorderly conduct,” which together criminalized sleeping in public, were unconstitutional violations of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition from punishing an involuntary act or condition. The court noted that both Boise and the Borough of Pottstown had a large homeless population and insufficient shelter space to accommodate them. It reasoned that although the present case did not involve an ordinance directly criminalizing the status of homelessness like in Boise, because the Borough of Pottstown barred the existence of homeless shelters through its zoning code and was planning to enforce the closure of the College Drive Encampment through the threat of criminal sanctions, it would effectively be punishing homeless individuals for “something for which they may not be convicted under the Eighth Amendment–that is, their status of homelessness.” The court thus concluded that the Borough of Pottstown’s plan to enforce the closure of the College Drive Encampment through criminal sanctions was a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban against cruel and unusual punishment.
On December 6, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which asserted only an Eighth Amendment violation. On January 4, 2024, the defendants appealed the preliminary injunction to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Plaintiffs again amended their complaint on February 26, 2024. Instead of seeking individual relief, the second amended complaint sought class action relief for “all current and future individuals in the Borough of Pottstown who are, or who will become, unhoused and living outside.” The second amended complaint also removed the original claim of that the Borough’s plan to close the encampment was an unconstitutional “state-created danger” and introduced a Fourteenth Amendment argument that the Borough’s plan to close the encampment interfered with the unhoused plaintiffs’ due process right to travel under the Fourteenth Amendment. The second amended continued to assert that the defendant’s conduct was a violation of the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
On March 11, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision in Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, Oregon, which held that enforcing bans on camping on public property was not prohibited “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment. In light of the Grants Pass decision, the parties went back and forth regarding the alleged Eighth Amendment violation. The plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their Eighth Amendment claim, and on August 5, 2024, the court issued an order to terminate the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, on August 21, 2024, the Third Circuit dismissed the defendant’s appeal regarding the preliminary injunction.
On September 25, 2024, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint as moot and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended complaint as moot. The court granted the defendant's motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amendment complaint. On October 28, 2024, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amendment complaint.
As of November 21, 2024, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Nicole Brigstock (11/30/2024)
Bell v. City of Boise, District of Idaho (2009)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67935459/parties/beltran-v-borough-of-pottstown/
BRIANT, ERICA N. (Pennsylvania)
Burrows, Charles Lane (Pennsylvania)
MACHER, MARIELLE (Pennsylvania)
BROWN, SHERYL LYNN (Pennsylvania)
Mikelis, Demetrios (Pennsylvania)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67935459/beltran-v-borough-of-pottstown/
Last updated Jan. 29, 2025, 11:11 p.m.
State / Territory: Pennsylvania
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 1, 2023
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A Southeastern Pennsylvania nonprofit organization and all current and future individuals in the Borough of Pottstown who are, or who will become, unhoused and living outside.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Unknown
Defendants
Borough of Pottstown (Montgomery), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2023 - None
Issues