Murray v. City of Phila.
| Decision Date | 25 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-04018 |
| Citation | 481 F.Supp.3d 461 |
| Parties | MURRAY et al. v. The CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Michael N. Huff, Philadelphia, PA, for Irvin Murray, Maurice Scott, Dolores McFadden, Faith Anne Burdick, Edwin Jones.
Diana P. Cortes, Kristin K. Bray, Andrew Richman, City of Philadelphia Law Department, Philadelphia, PA, for the City of Philadelphia, Mayor James Kenney.
MEMORANDUM DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1
PROLOGUE:
This case pits the City of Philadelphia's power and responsibilities to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of its residents against the claims by protesters to constitutional protection for their occupation of City property. The protestors have occupied two properties owned by the City and one property owned by an agency of the Commonwealth, including two parks widely used by the general public, as a way to highlight and force a solution to the plight of the Philadelphia homeless.
This conflict does not take place in a vacuum. For many years now the growing problem of homelessness has not escaped public notice. Nor is the problem unique to Philadelphia—cities like Seattle, San Francisco, or Denver have similar issues. The problem of homelessness is one of national dimension.
And yet, despite the enormity of the problem, the principles of Federalism limit federal courts to fixing the outer limit to the City's exercise of its police power in light of the protestors' claims to constitutional protection. Therefore, while the Court will decide the legal issues, it will not seek, nor is it equipped to offer, permanent solutions to the problem of homelessness. Admittedly, the larger issues are complicated, including: What type of housing, if any, should the City provide? How many beds should the City make available? Should the City provide (or increase) mental health or drug addiction treatment? Should the City provide alternative sites for encampments? If so, where should they be located? Should the City house the homeless in hotel rooms? How can families be kept together? Should the City provide educational or other forms of training to promote employment opportunities? If additional funding is needed, where will it come from? And many other significant issues.
The task of finding if not a solution at least some relief to this crisis rests squarely on the shoulders of the City's elected officials. It is an enormous challenge. But further indecision and neglect will only make it worse.
Plaintiffs Irvin Murray, Maurice Scott, Dolores McFadden, Faith Anne Burdick, and Edwin Jones are residents of Philadelphia homeless encampments.2 Two of the Plaintiffs are women, three are men, and all five are African American. Defendants are: the City of Philadelphia ("City"); Mayor James Kenney; and the Philadelphia Housing Authority ("PHA"), which is an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.3 Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction enjoining Defendants from dissolving those encampments.
The facts in this case are largely undisputed. Plaintiffs are residents of three encampments in the City of Philadelphia located at: (1) Von Colln Memorial Field ("Von Colln"); (2) Jefferson and Ridge; and (3) the Azalea Garden. The Von Colln and Azalea Garden encampments are on City property, while the Jefferson and Ridge encampment is on land owned by the PHA. The Von Colln and Azalea Garden encampments are located in public parks near the center of the City in an area containing numerous historical and tourist attractions. The Benjamin Franklin Parkway, which abuts the Von Colln encampment, is the site of numerous parades and other large gatherings in a typical year. The Jefferson and Ridge encampment is a few miles away from the center of the City and is located in a vacant lot across the street from the PHA headquarters building at 2013 Ridge Avenue that was previously used for parking.
The encampments formed during the summer of 2020, and Plaintiffs allege that they constitute protests advocating for fair housing for the homeless. Approximately 230 people currently reside in the encampments.4 The land on which the encampments are located is not equipped to provide access to running water, electricity, or sanitary facilities for a large number of people. However, the occupants of the Von Colln encampment have tapped into the City's power grid for electricity, siphoned water from a nearby City fountain, and procured portable toilets. Outside supporters of the encampments supply food donations to encampment residents.
City officials and outreach workers are not permitted to visit the encampments, and general public access to the encampments has ceased. Recreational and other activities ordinarily conducted at Von Colln have been cancelled or postponed.
Neighbors have complained that the encampment at Von Colln denies them access to the park and to the annexed athletic facilities. They also complain of aggressive panhandling and criminal activity in the area. In a span of two months this summer, City officials received more than 200 complaints about nuisance-like behavior stemming from the encampments. Defendants, however, have not identified any police arrests of encampment residents. Moreover, neighbors of the Jefferson and Ridge encampment contend that it interferes with the construction of a building that will house a bank and grocery store greatly needed by the community.
On July 10, 2020, the City posted written notices at the Von Colln encampment informing residents that their occupancy was unlawful and that they must leave the location and remove their personal property by July 17, 2020. The notices stated that the City would store personal property for 30 days and would consider stored property not retrieved within 30 days to be abandoned. The notices also directed residents seeking shelter or services to Homeless Outreach and the Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbility Services and included information about how to contact those services. Residents of the Jefferson and Ridge and Azalea Garden encampments received similar notices instructing them to vacate by July 17, 2020.
Encampment residents did not vacate by the deadline. On August 17, 2020, the City sent additional notices to the residents informing them that they must vacate and remove their possessions by August 18, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. The City represents that it intends only to dissolve the encampments and does not seek to impose civil or criminal penalties on encampment residents.
On August 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction seeking to bar Defendants from disbanding the encampments. On August 20, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the fully briefed motion. Plaintiffs called encampment residents Jonnell Johnson, Irvin Murray, and Jeremy Williams as fact witnesses and Professor Stephanie Sena, Anti-Poverty Fellow and Professor of Poverty and Policy at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, as an expert witness.5 Defendants called: Eva Gladstein, Deputy Managing Director for Health and Human Services for the City of Philadelphia; Dennis Boylan, President of the Board of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association of Philadelphia; Nicholas Dema, PHA Executive Vice-President of Planning Development; and Darnetta Arce, Executive Director of the Brewerytown-Sharswood NAC. The Court heard further oral argument on August 24, 2020.
At the conclusion of the August 20, 2020, hearing, Defendants voluntarily placed the planned encampment dissolutions on hold pending the outcome of this motion.
Preliminary injunctive relief is an "extraordinary remedy" that courts should grant "only in limited circumstances."
Holland v. Rosen, 895 F.3d 272, 285 (3d Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 440, 202 L.Ed.2d 319 (2018). The party moving for such relief must demonstrate: "(1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm to the applicant; (3) whether the denial of a preliminary injunction would injure the moving party more than the issuance of an injunction would harm the non-moving party; and (4) whether the grant of relief would serve the public interest." Id. at 285–86 (citation omitted). Because "the first two factors are prerequisites for a movant to prevail," the Court need not reach the third and fourth factors if it determines that a plaintiff has failed to establish the first two. Id. at 286.
A municipality's broad authority to advance the welfare, safety, and health of its residents is known as its "police power." Police power includes the ability to enact rules governing everyday affairs, and the power to enforce those rules.
Municipalities, as such, have no inherent police power. Police power reposes in the state, which may delegate that power to a municipality, including by a constitutional "home rule" provision. Philadelphia has a home rule charter providing that the city shall "have complete powers of legislation and administration in relation to its municipal functions," 53 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 13131 (1999). By adopting the charter, Warren v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- McDonald-Witherspoon v. City of Phila.
-
Honkala v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.
...on the shoulders of the City's elected officials. It is an enormous challenge. But further indecision and neglect will only make it worse.” Id. at 466; SAC In the midst of this housing and public health crisis, adult Plaintiff Yesenia Cruz, her three minor children, E.R, E.C. and I.R, along......
-
Honkala v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.
...on the shoulders of the City's elected officials. It is an enormous challenge. But further indecision and neglect will only make it worse.” Id. at 466; SAC In the midst of this housing and public health crisis, adult Plaintiff Yesenia Cruz, her three minor children, E.R, E.C. and I.R, along......
-
Sassamansville Fire Co. No. 1 v. Livelsberger
... ... shocks the conscience.” Connection Training Servs ... v. City of Philadelphia , 358 Fed.Appx. 315, 319-20 (3d ... Cir. 2009) (citing Chainey v. Street , ... for a state-created danger claim. Id.; see also Murray v ... City of Philadelphia , 481 F.Supp.3d 461, 474-75 (E.D ... Pa. 2020) (affirming ... ...