977 F.3d 1061
11th Cir.2020Background
- In 1998 the district court entered the Pottinger consent decree resolving a class action that found Miami unlawfully arrested homeless people for "life-sustaining conduct" and seized/destroyed their property; the decree limited arrests and protected homeless property except when contaminated or hazardous.
- The decree was modified in 2014 to narrow the scope of misdemeanors and to add a sidewalk rule that bars obstruction "after one warning."
- Miami implemented training, procedures, body-cameras, property-handling rules, outreach teams, and a Homeless Trust-funded continuum of care; county homelessness fell by ~90%, leaving mainly chronically homeless persons.
- In 2018 the City moved under Rule 60(b)(5) to terminate the decree (arguing fulfillment, changed circumstances, and substantial compliance); the homeless class moved for enforcement and contempt, alleging systematic violations during 2018 clean-ups.
- After a seven-day evidentiary hearing the district court found the City in substantial compliance, concluded the decree’s core purpose (stopping criminalization of homelessness) had been achieved, terminated the decree, and denied the contempt motion.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the district court correctly interpreted the decree, applied burdens properly, did not abuse its discretion in terminating the decree, and did not err in denying contempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of decree provisions (property, "move-on" orders, "one warning") | Homeless: district court misread text; allows destroying property, tolerates harassment, and reduces "one warning" protection | City: plain text permits discarding contaminated/hazardous items, police may issue move-on orders, and "one warning" need not be contemporaneous on each encounter | Court: affirmed district court interpretations; plain meaning controls and exceptions for contaminated items apply; move-on orders not per se unconstitutional; "one warning" not read as requiring contemporaneous warning each encounter |
| Burdens for termination vs. contempt | Homeless: district court shifted termination burden onto them by not making findings on some contested facts | City: court properly bifurcated; City bore heavy burden to show termination grounds; homeless bore clear-and-convincing burden for contempt | Court: no error; district court applied separate burdens correctly and considered totality for termination |
| Termination under Rule 60(b)(5) / substantial compliance | Homeless: systemic violations and inconsistent procedures show no durable remedy; termination premature | City: has substantially complied, implemented durable remedies, and unlikely to revert to past practices | Court: affirmed termination — City showed substantial, good-faith compliance and a durable remedy accomplishing decree’s core purpose |
| Contempt motion based on 2018 clean-ups | Homeless: clean-ups involved unlawful move-on orders and seizure/destruction of property in violation of decree | City: actions targeted contaminated/sanitation hazards and complied with procedures; no unambiguous decree violation proven | Court: contempt denial affirmed — homeless failed to prove unambiguous violation by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (federalism and termination of institutional consent decrees; durable remedy principle)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (district court discretion in modifying/terminating decrees)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (standard: current compliance and unlikelihood of relapse justify termination)
- Johnson v. Florida, 348 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.) (party seeking termination bears heavy burden)
- Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (origin of the consent decree finding criminalization of homelessness)
- Jackson v. Los Lunas Cmty. Program, 880 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir.) (focus on present compliance and totality of circumstances)
- Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir.) (clear-and-convincing showing required for contempt; elements to prove)
- Jeff D. v. Otter, 643 F.3d 278 (9th Cir.) (need to keep burdens for modification and contempt separate)