Baltimore v. District of Columbia
10 A.3d 1141
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Franklin Shelter provided overnight shelter for homeless men; staff conducted intake and allowed belongings in footlockers, with daytime exit.
- Shelter closed September 26, 2008; Shelter Closing Emergency Act was signed September 30, 2008.
- Plaintiffs filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging HSRA violations, constitutional claims, negligence per se, and other torts.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the District, finding HSRA creates only a severe-weather shelter entitlement and no general service entitlement; no protected property interest in medical or other services; and tort claims lacking viability.
- Appellants appealed; DC Court of Appeals affirmed, holding HSRA grants shelter in severe weather but not other entitlements, and rejected due process, IIED, and conversion claims; Emergency Act did not apply because it was not law when shelter closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does HSRA create entitlement to services beyond severe-weather shelter? | Baltimore argues HSRA provides broader entitlements to services within the Continuum of Care. | District contends HSRA only creates the shelter entitlement in severe weather; other services are not statutory entitlements. | Only shelter in severe weather is a statutory entitlement. |
| Were the plaintiffs denied procedural rights under HSRA before Franklin Shelter's closure? | Baltimore asserts denial of timely notice and fair hearing under HSRA. | District contends provision of notice/hearings does not create a pre-closure entitlement; notices given complied with HSRA and no right to a pre-closure hearing existed. | No due procedural-right violation; no pre-closure entitlement to a hearing. |
| Did the District deprive plaintiffs of due process by taking or denying shelter or belongings? | Baltimore claims constitutional right to shelter and to retain belongings absent due process. | District argues no constitutionally protected property interest in shelter or services beyond severe-weather shelter; belongings were safeguarded and transportation offered. | No due process violation; no constitutionally protected shelter or service interest. |
| Are IIED or conversion claims viable based on shelter closure and handling of belongings? | Baltimore contends outrageous conduct and improper disposition of belongings caused distress or conversion. | District acted methodically; no extreme conduct or unlawful disposition; belongings were safeguarded/transported; not convertible. | IIED and conversion claims fail as a matter of law. |
| Is the Franklin Shelter Closing Requirements Emergency Act of 2008 applicable to the closure? | District failed to comply with the Emergency Act provisions preceding closure. | Act was not law when closure occurred; not applicable to the September 26, 2008 closure. | Act not applicable; no liability under Count VI. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972) (no constitutional right to housing in property due process context)
- Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless v. Barry, 107 F.3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (due process requires a protected property interest to trigger entitlement)
- Kitt v. Capital Concerts, Inc., 742 A.2d 856 (D.C. 1999) (IIED elements; outrageous conduct requirement)
- Dennis v. Edwards, 831 A.2d 1006 (D.C. 2003) (elements and limits of conversion claim)
- Abadie v. District of Columbia Contract Appeals Bd., 843 A.2d 738 (D.C. 2004) (reconciling related statutes when interpreting entitlements)