Robert Martin v. City of Boise
902 F.3d 1031
9th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are six current or former Boise residents who, between 2007–2009, were cited or convicted under two Boise ordinances: a Camping Ordinance (ban on using public property as a place of dwelling) and a Disorderly Conduct Ordinance (ban on occupying/sleeping on public property without permission).
- Boise has limited shelter capacity (three private shelters totaling ~354 beds plus overflow mats); one shelter (Sanctuary) often reaches capacity, and the two largest shelters (Boise Rescue Mission programs) impose stay limits, religious-program conditions, and check-in/time restrictions that can make shelter effectively unavailable to some.
- After litigation began, the Boise Police adopted a Shelter Protocol/Special Order instructing officers not to enforce the ordinances on nights when shelters report being full; the City later codified that policy into ordinance amendments in 2014.
- Procedurally: district court granted summary judgment to City relying on Heck and lack of standing; Ninth Circuit reversed in part: majority holds (1) the Eighth Amendment bars criminalizing sleeping outside when no shelter is available; (2) most retrospective §1983 damages claims are Heck-barred except two dismissed citations; (3) two plaintiffs have standing for prospective relief and prospective injunctive/declaratory relief is not barred by Heck.
- Remedy: the court affirmed dismissal of most retrospective damages claims, reversed as to (a) Hawkes’s July 2007 dismissed citation and (b) Martin’s April 2009 dismissed citation; reversed and remanded on prospective relief (injunctive and declaratory).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eighth Amendment prohibits criminalizing sleeping outdoors when no shelter is available | Criminalizing sleeping/living outdoors punishes involuntary conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of homelessness and thus violates Cruel and Unusual Punishment | City argues ordinances regulate conduct (not status) and are enforceable; City points to shelter alternatives and amended ordinances/Shelter Protocol | Held: Eighth Amendment bars prosecuting homeless people for sleeping outside on public property when no alternative shelter is practically available (narrow rule) |
| Standing for prospective relief | Martin & Anderson say they face a credible threat of future prosecution when shelters are inaccessible due to shelter policies/time limits | City says amendments and Shelter Protocol remove credible threat; shelters never reported full (BRM) so enforcement won’t occur when no shelter space exists | Held: Genuine dispute of material fact exists about practical shelter availability and threat of prosecution; Martin and Anderson have standing for prospective relief |
| Application of Heck to retrospective §1983 damages claims | Plaintiffs argue some convictions were time-served (no habeas remedy) and some citations were dismissed, so Heck shouldn’t bar damages | City argues Heck requires favorable termination to pursue damages for convictions that would be invalidated by success on §1983 claims | Held: Most damages claims are Heck-barred (convictions not appealed/invalidated). But Heck does not bar claims arising from citations that were dismissed (no conviction)—Martin (one dismissed citation) and Hawkes (one dismissed citation) may pursue retrospective relief |
| Whether Heck bars prospective injunctive/declaratory relief challenging the ordinances | Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctions to prevent future enforcement against unsheltered homeless | City contends Heck and Wilkinson bar §1983 suits seeking relief that would invalidate prior convictions or the statute | Held: Heck does not bar prospective relief here; Wolff/Edwards/Wilkinson allow prospective injunctions that would not necessarily invalidate past confinement, and Heck’s concern is finality of past convictions not insulating future prosecutions from constitutional challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that criminalizing sitting/lying/sleeping in public when no shelter exists violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§1983 damages claim that would imply invalidity of conviction barred absent favorable termination)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (§1983 may provide prospective injunctive relief against unconstitutional regulations even where habeas is the remedy for release)
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (Heck bars §1983 claims that would necessarily imply invalidity of confinement; prospective relief that would not imply invalidity may still proceed)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (Heck bars §1983 claims if success would necessarily imply invalidity of confinement; distinguished claims seeking future relief that would not shorten confinement)
- Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) (Eighth Amendment prohibits criminalizing a status or involuntary condition)
- Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968) (distinguishes criminalizing status from criminalizing specific public conduct)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (addresses limits of habeas and suggests Heck may not apply when habeas remedy is effectively unavailable)