Proctor v. Dist. of Columbia
310 F. Supp. 3d 107
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Shanel Proctor and Charlaine Braxton (unsheltered D.C. residents) allege the District destroyed their unattended personal property during encampment cleanups and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment. They seek a preliminary injunction requiring the District to store unattended property for 60 days before disposal and class certification of similarly situated homeless individuals.
- The District has a written Protocol for Disposition of Property Found on Public Space: it requires 14‑day and 48‑hour posted notice, outreach, containers on cleanup day, inventorying, and storage of claimed property for 60 days; it permits disposal of property that poses health/safety risks or is abandoned.
- In practice the District: posts specific-date notices, conducts outreach visits, provides packing containers, stores property at an intake center for up to 60 days, but sometimes treats unattended items as abandoned after fact‑specific inquiries (consulting outreach workers and encampment residents) and disposes of them.
- Plaintiffs contend the District has a pattern of destroying non‑abandoned, unattended property (citing Lavan); District contends it reasonably determines abandonment before disposal and provides notice and storage procedures.
- The court held an evidentiary record showing individualized, fact‑specific abandonment determinations and District efforts to avoid destroying possessed property; Plaintiffs declined an evidentiary hearing and did not show systemic constitutional violations or sufficient class numerosity evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on Fourth Amendment claim (prelim. injunction) | Summary destruction of unattended property violates the Fourth Amendment because owners retain possessory interests. | District routinely posts specific notice, conducts outreach, provides storage, and disposes only after objective abandonment determinations. | Plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success; record supports reasonable, individualized abandonment determinations. |
| Irreparable harm (prelim. injunction) | Destruction of personal property is irremediable and thus irreparable. | While loss is sometimes irreparable, Plaintiffs failed to show such loss is imminent given District procedures and the ability to avoid loss. | Although loss can be irreparable, Plaintiffs did not show imminent/certain harm absent relief. |
| Balance of equities & public interest (prelim. injunction) | Protecting constitutional rights favors injunction. | Injunction would impede public health/safety cleanups and impose significant storage burdens. | Equities and public interest favor the District; injunction denied. |
| Class certification — numerosity (Rule 23) | Cite census: ~897 unsheltered people in D.C.; these persons are members of the proposed class. | Not all unsheltered persons are subject to District cleanups (federal/private land excluded); plaintiffs provided no reliable estimate of class size. | Plaintiffs failed to show numerosity or provide a reasonable class‑size estimate; class not certified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Soldal v. Cook Cty., 506 U.S. 56 (Sup. Ct.) (seizure occurs when possessory interests are meaningfully interfered with)
- United States v. Thomas, 864 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir.) (warrantless seizure of abandoned property is reasonable; abandonment is an objective inquiry)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (Sup. Ct.) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom)
- Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir.) (city policy of seizing/destroying unabandoned possessions violated the Fourth Amendment)