BEALE v. WETZEL et al

Filing 229

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 228 Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 7/21/21. (mh)

Case 1:13-cv-00015-JFC Document 229 Filed 07/21/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THOMAS BEALE,
Plaintiff,

v.
JOHN WETZEL et al.,
Defendants.

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-15
)
) JUDGE JOY FLOWERS CONTI
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the court is a motion to enforce settlement agreement (ECF No. 216) filed
by pro se plaintiff Thomas Beale (“Beale”), currently an inmate at SCI-Chester. Defendants
filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 218), and submitted for in camera review certain Vote
Sheets. The court held an evidentiary hearing on May 26, 2021. The hearing was scheduled to
resume today, July 21, 2021, but Beale reported he was not prepared to proceed. Beale
represented to the court that there is another inmate in his cell. The hearing will resume on July
27, 2021 at 2:30 p.m.
Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy. As a threshold matter, Beale must establish
the two “most critical” factors: likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. Reilly v.
City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2017). If these “gateway factors” are satisfied, the
court considers the third and fourth factors: the potential for harm to others if relief is granted,
and whether the public interest favors injunctive relief. Id. at 176, 179. Preliminary injunctive
relief is warranted because, after review of the documents submitted by the parties and the
testimony at the initial hearing, the court finds that Beale has established a strong likelihood of

Case 1:13-cv-00015-JFC Document 229 Filed 07/21/21 Page 2 of 3

success on the merits, would be irreparably harmed in the absence of relief, defendants would
not be harmed, and entry of the order is consistent with public policy.
1. Likelihood of success on the merits
Beale is seeking to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement which resolved Civil
Action No. 13-15. This court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. As relevant to the
pending dispute, under the terms of the agreement, “the Department of Corrections (“DOC”)
agrees that Plaintiff will be given single cell status for one year, and the single-cell status will
continue for subsequent one-year periods thereafter, subject to annual review at the end of
each one-year period, at which time DOC may revoke the single-cell status based on a good
faith determination of Plaintiff’s behavior/rule compliance and the Department’s
penological needs.” (ECF No. 204-1 at 2-3) (emphasis added).
In other words, the single-cell status must remain in effect unless the DOC articulates a
valid basis to remove it. The Vote Sheets reflect a misperception by DOC personnel that the
single-cell status needed to be in effect for only one year. The Vote Sheets do not point to any
misbehavior or lack of rule compliance by Beale and they do not point to a change in the
department’s penological needs. In sum, upon the court’s in camera review, Beale is likely to
prove that defendants breached the settlement agreement by revoking his single-cell status.
2. Irreparable harm
The court accepts Beale’s representation, supported by multiple declarations submitted to
the court, that he has been forced to have another inmate in his cell and that he is currently
sharing his cell. Beale further reports that the inmates assigned to his cell have not been
vaccinated for the Covid-19 virus. The court finds that the failure to maintain Beale in singlecell status constitutes irreparable harm.

Case 1:13-cv-00015-JFC Document 229 Filed 07/21/21 Page 3 of 3

3. Harm to defendants or others
The court perceives no harm to defendants or others that may arise from compliance with
this order. Defendants did not articulate any possible harm. The relief granted is narrowly
tailored, i.e., enforcement of Beale’s contractual right to single-cell status until the court can
make a final determination. The hearing is scheduled to continue on July 27, 2021 (less than one
week from today).
4. Public policy
The court instructed defense counsel to coordinate with the DOC to ensure that Beale was
available to participate. The evidentiary hearing set for today, July 21, 2021, had to be
postponed because Beale claimed he was not notified of the purpose of the proceeding and was
not able to prepare. In addition, requiring the DOC to comply with the terms of the settlement
agreement it reached with Beale is consistent with public policy.
5. Bond
The bond requirement is waived. Beale would suffer a hardship because, as an
incarcerated inmate, he does not have the financial ability to post a bond, and there will be no
possible economic lost, costs or damages imposed on the DOC associated with this injunctive
relief. Marland v. Trump, 498 F. Supp. 3d 624, 644 (E.D. Pa. 2020); Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(c).
An appropriate Order will be entered.
Dated: July 21, 2021

/s/ Joy Flowers Conti
United States District Judge