Allen v. City of Sacramento
234 Cal. App. 4th 41
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs are 22 homeless individuals and two service providers who camped on a private, fenced lot in Sacramento with the owner’s permission; City police repeatedly cited them under Sacramento Municipal Code §12.52.030 (camping ban) and seized their tents and belongings, then ultimately arrested them.
- The ordinance makes it a misdemeanor to camp, occupy camp facilities, or use camp paraphernalia on public or private property without a City permit, with limited exceptions for one-night residential visits and temporary special-event permits.
- Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint seeking declaratory relief (facial and as-applied constitutional challenges), an injunction against enforcement, and relief under Civil Code §52.1 (Tom Bane Act); the trial court sustained the City’s demurrer with leave to amend; plaintiffs declined to amend and appealed.
- On demurrer review, the court accepts well-pleaded facts as true but evaluates legal sufficiency de novo and presumes legislative enactments constitutional unless clearly invalid.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed most rulings but reversed in part: it held plaintiffs stated an as-applied equal protection claim; rejected facial vagueness, Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual), right-to-travel, injunctive-cause-of-action, and §52.1 theories as pleaded or preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial vagueness of camping ordinance | Ordinance lacks standards guarding against arbitrary enforcement and contains vague terms (e.g., camp, temporary) | Ordinance gives fair notice and defines terms; plaintiffs’ conduct clearly proscribed | Demurrer properly sustained — facial vagueness fails because plaintiffs engaged in conduct the ordinance clearly forbids |
| Eighth Amendment (as-applied) — criminalizing status | Ordinance punishes homelessness (status), so criminalization of status violates Robinson | Ordinance punishes conduct (camping), not status; Robinson inapplicable | As-applied Eighth Amendment claim fails — ordinance targets acts, not status; plaintiffs did not plead homelessness as an unchangeable status |
| Right to travel (as-applied) | Enforcement effectively forces homeless people to leave the City or prevents them from remaining | Ordinance does not directly restrict entry/exit or discriminate based on residency; impact is incidental | Right-to-travel claim fails — only indirect/incidental impact, no punishment for exercise of travel right pleaded |
| Equal protection (as-applied) | City selectively enforces ordinance against homeless people and their supporters, reflecting discriminatory purpose | Ordinance is facially neutral and presumed valid; enforcement does not on its face discriminate | Plaintiffs stated a viable as-applied equal protection claim — allegations of selective enforcement are sufficient at pleading stage |
| Injunctive relief as a cause of action | Complaint sought injunction against selective enforcement | Injunction is a remedy, not an independent cause of action | Demurrer properly sustained as to second cause — injunctive relief is a remedy; underlying cause must be pleaded |
| Civil Code §52.1 (Tom Bane Act) | Arrests, seizures and police threats/coercion constitute threats, intimidation or coercion under §52.1 | Mere unlawful arrest/detention without independent threats/coercion is insufficient under §52.1 | Demurrer properly sustained — plaintiffs failed to plead threats of violence or coercion independent from the coercion inherent in arrests; §52.1 claim insufficiently pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1962) (criminalizing status can violate Eighth Amendment)
- Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1968) (punishing conduct, even when related to a compulsion or condition, does not necessarily violate Eighth Amendment)
- Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 1995) (facial vs. as-applied challenges; presumption of constitutionality; limits on Robinson-based claims)
- Parr v. Municipal Court for Monterey, 3 Cal.3d 861 (Cal. 1971) (ordinance motivated by discriminatory animus violates equal protection)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (equal protection analysis and impermissibility of bare animus-based classifications)
- Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal.4th 820 (Cal. 2004) (§52.1 requires threats, intimidation or coercion in addition to asserted constitutional violations)