Robert Martin v. City of Boise
920 F.3d 584
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- Six current or formerly homeless Boise residents were cited under Boise City ordinances banning "camping" and "occupying, lodging, or sleeping" in public; most convictions resulted in time served. Two plaintiffs sought prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against future enforcement.
- Boise operated three shelters (one secular, two run by a Christian nonprofit) with limited beds and varying stay restrictions (e.g., 17- and 30-day limits, mandatory program participation); shelters sometimes use overflow mats and at least one shelter frequently reported being full.
- The City adopted an administrative "Shelter Protocol" (2010) and amended the ordinances (2014) to prohibit enforcement on nights when no shelter had an available overnight space; enforcement nevertheless continued and citations were still issued.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing enforcement violated the Eighth Amendment by effectively criminalizing involuntary, life-sustaining conduct (sleeping) when no shelter was available.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the City applying Heck and mootness reasoning; the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, allowing (a) certain retrospective claims not barred by Heck (dismissed citations), and (b) prospective relief challenging enforcement where a genuine issue existed about shelter availability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have standing for prospective relief | Martin and Anderson: credible threat of future prosecution when shelters deny entry for reasons other than capacity (stay limits, religious program requirements) | City: 2014 ordinance amendment and Shelter Protocol remove any credible threat because enforcement is barred when shelters lack space | Court: Martin and Anderson raised genuine factual disputes about realistic shelter availability and thus have standing for prospective relief |
| Whether Heck bars retrospective § 1983 claims for convictions not invalidated | Plaintiffs: many received only time-served sentences and some had dismissed citations; Heck should not bar claims where habeas was impracticable or where no conviction exists | City: Heck requires favorable termination for challenges that would imply invalidity of convictions, so damages claims are barred | Court: Heck bars most damages claims for unchallenged convictions, but does not bar claims arising from dismissed citations (no conviction) |
| Whether Heck bars prospective declaratory/injunctive relief challenging the ordinances | Plaintiffs: prospective equitable relief is permitted (Wolff/Edwards/Wilkinson distinctions); relief would not necessarily invalidate existing confinement | City/Owens concurrence: declaring the ordinance unconstitutional and enjoining enforcement would necessarily imply invalidity of prior convictions and is barred by Heck | Court (majority): Heck does not bar prospective equitable relief because such relief does not necessarily imply invalidity of existing confinement; Owens concurred in part and dissented as to this point |
| Whether applying the Eighth Amendment forbids criminalizing sleeping outdoors when no shelter is available | Plaintiffs: Robinson and Powell (as interpreted) protect against punishing involuntary consequences of homelessness — sleeping is a life-sustaining, unavoidable act when no shelter exists | City/dissenters: Powell/Marks/Robinson do not support invalidating conduct-based laws; decision conflicts with other circuits and imposes impracticable duties on municipalities | Court: The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause bars enforcement of ordinances that criminalize sitting/lying/sleeping in public against homeless individuals when no alternative shelter is practically available (narrow holding) |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) (Eighth Amendment forbids criminalizing a status—narcotics addiction—as cruel and unusual)
- Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968) (plurality) (distinguishes criminalizing status from criminalizing conduct; fractured decision relevant to limits on Robinson)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 claims seeking damages that would imply invalidity of conviction are barred absent favorable termination)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (preclusion of habeas-like relief in § 1983 does not necessarily bar ancillary prospective injunctive relief)
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (Heck applies to declaratory claims that would necessarily invalidate a conviction; prospective relief may remain available)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (Heck bars § 1983 claims that would necessarily demonstrate invalidity of confinement; distinguishes prospective relief that would not implicate duration of confinement)
- Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006) (panel) (holding that enforcing sit/lie/sleep bans against homeless individuals when shelter is unavailable violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2015) (Heck bars § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction where plaintiff could have pursued direct appeal or state post-conviction relief)
- Joel v. City of Orlando, 232 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2000) (upholding anti-sleeping/camping ordinance where unrefuted evidence showed shelter access was effectively available)
- Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (applying Robinson/Powell reasoning to hold that punishing life-sustaining conduct of homeless persons can be unconstitutional)