393 F.Supp.3d 1075
W.D. Wash.2019Background
- River Camp: an undeveloped strip in Aberdeen long used by ~100 unhoused people; the City purchased it in 2018 and seeks to close and evict occupants citing safety, sanitation, and access concerns.
- Four challenged ordinances: Eviction Ordinance (Ordinance No. 19-5) to bar access to River Camp; Anti‑Camping Ordinance (AMC §12.46) prohibiting camping on most public property with civil fines; Sit‑Lie Ordinance (AMC §12.41) restricting sitting/lying on downtown sidewalks; Sidewalk Law (AMC §12.44) criminalizing obstruction of sidewalks.
- The City contends an exception in the Anti‑Camping Ordinance (when no shelter is available) and an ADA‑based interpretation of a 4‑foot pedestrian route will allow camping on portions of sidewalks; the City mapped sidewalk space it says could host tent sites.
- Plaintiffs (River Camp residents and associates) seek a TRO/preliminary injunction to prevent eviction and enforcement, arguing the ordinances (collectively) effectively criminalize homelessness and violate the Eighth Amendment, right to travel, freedom of association, and due process.
- The Court stayed enforcement of the Eviction Ordinance earlier to permit relocation negotiations; disputes about where plaintiffs could lawfully camp and whether the ordinances reach civil vs. criminal punishment remained unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether criminalizing sitting/sleeping/camping violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual) | Martin bars criminal penalties for sleeping/sitting outside when no shelter exists; Aberdeen’s ordinances criminalize homelessness | Martin is limited; City may evict from specific sites (River Camp) and its anti‑camping penalty is civil or limited by exceptions | Eviction Ordinance: plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on Eighth Amendment. Other ordinances: serious questions exist; temporary stay of enforcement warranted pending fuller review |
| Right to travel / whether eviction/ordinances penalize movement | Barring necessities of life in public effectively penalizes migration and deters newcomers | Right to travel does not protect indefinite occupation; City may clear particular sites for safety | Eviction Ordinance: claim unlikely to succeed. But uncertainty about enforcement of citywide camping rules warrants temporary relief on other ordinances |
| Freedom of association | Plaintiffs assert group living and communal ties are burdened by camping restrictions | Ordinances do not target expressive association or intimate-family cohabitation; no precedent applying association doctrine to these restrictions | Claim unlikely to succeed; Court rejects novel application of association right here |
| Irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest for injunctive relief | Enforcement will force long‑term Aberdeen residents to leave or face penalties—irreparable harm | City shows River Camp is dangerous to occupants and responders; public safety favors eviction | Eviction Ordinance: harms do not outweigh public safety interests—TRO denied. For the other ordinances: irreparable harm and equities favor plaintiffs; Court grants temporary injunction restraining enforcement as to sidewalk areas outside the ADA 4‑foot public access route and other ADA‑necessary areas |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018) (Ninth Circuit held Eighth Amendment bars criminal penalties for sleeping outside when no shelter is available)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctive relief: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974) (TROs preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm pending further hearing)
- Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) (Eighth Amendment traditionally circumscribed to criminal punishment)
- Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993) (Eighth Amendment considerations can cross civil/criminal distinctions in some contexts)
- Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (ordinarily cited for the proposition that criminalizing life‑sustaining conduct of homeless persons can implicate right to travel and equal protection)