Theresa Victory v. Berks County, 19-1329

Background

Berks County Jail designates “Trusty” inmates (most trustworthy) but houses Trusty men at an off-site Community Reentry Center (CRC) and Trusty women inside the jail’s F‑Block; female Trusty inmates are excluded from CRC privileges.
Theresa Victory (female) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Equal Protection violation; the district court granted a preliminary injunction on January 15, 2019 (later dissolved as to Victory when she was released).
Alice Velazquez‑Diaz (female) joined the suit and obtained a preliminary injunction on May 20, 2019 ordering the County to propose a compliance plan (including unpartitioned visitation).
The district court never made the PLRA-mandated findings that prospective relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary, and is the least intrusive means; under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2) preliminary injunctions expire after 90 days absent those findings.
After the County submitted affidavits and a plan, the district court found the County and Warden Quigley in contempt for failing to comply and ordered implementation and damages/fees; the County appealed. Both plaintiffs were later released, and the County appealed multiple orders.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of the Jan. 15 and May 20 preliminary injunctions	Injunctions addressed ongoing policy; review appropriate and exception (capable of repetition) applies	Injunctions expired under PLRA and plaintiffs were released, so appeals are moot	Appeals of both preliminary injunctions dismissed as moot because court never made required PLRA findings and >90 days elapsed
Mootness of the implementation order requiring County to implement plan	Implementation was necessary to effectuate injunction relief	Implementation order depended on the now‑expired preliminary injunction and therefore is moot	Implementation‑order appeal dismissed as moot because it derived from an expired injunction
Validity of contempt finding against County/Warden for violating May 20 order	County failed to provide a compliant plan; contempt appropriate	The May 20 injunction lacked required PLRA findings and thus had no legal effect when contempt was entered	Contempt order reversed: district court abused discretion because the underlying injunction lacked PLRA findings and was legally ineffective
Application of PLRA and mandatory‑injunction standard	Traditional preliminary injunction factors supported relief	District court failed to make particularized PLRA (needs/narrowness/intrusiveness) findings and did not apply heightened standard for mandatory injunctions	District court erred; PLRA requires specific findings and mandatory relief requires an "indisputably clear" showing

Key Cases Cited

Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690 (3d Cir. 1996) (mootness principles where intervening events prevent relief)
United States v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, 778 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2015) (PLRA 90‑day rule and requirement for specific findings to avoid automatic expiration)
Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) (required specificity of district court findings under PLRA to allow clear understanding of ruling)
Alloway v. Hodge, [citation="72 F. App'x 812"] (10th Cir. 2003) (absence of specific PLRA findings undermines injunction’s legal effect)
Marshak v. Treadwell, 595 F.3d 478 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard of review for contempt is abuse of discretion)
Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311 (3d Cir. 1995) (elements required to prove civil contempt)
Latrobe Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, 545 F.2d 1336 (3d Cir. 1976) (appealability of contempt orders in connection with preliminary injunction appeals)
Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 735 F.3d 131 (3d Cir. 2013) (heightened standard for mandatory preliminary injunctions)
Bennington Foods LLC v. St. Croix Renaissance Group, LLP, 528 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 2008) (refusal to grant mandatory relief without stronger showing)