Smith v. Municipality of Anchorage, 797 F.Supp.3d 992

Gregory Smith, a homeless resident of Anchorage, sued the Municipality under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that its practice of abating (clearing) homeless encampments under Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) § 15.20.020 violated his Fourth (search/seizure), Fourteenth (due process), and other constitutional rights.
Smith claimed that his campsite was cleared on or about June 24, 2022, after ten days' notice, and that all his belongings—including essentials and sentimental items—were destroyed during the abatement.
The Court previously dismissed Smith’s original complaint for factual insufficiency but allowed an amended complaint, which was eventually accepted for screening.
The Municipality moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of standing (as to equitable relief) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing its procedures were constitutionally sufficient.
Smith moved for a preliminary injunction to halt future abatements.
The Court denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the case with prejudice, finding amendment would be futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing for Equitable Relief	Smith is homeless in Anchorage, had property seized, and faces risk of future abatement; thus, he has standing	Smith has only alleged past harm, not imminent or substantial risk of future injury; not enough for forward-looking relief	Smith has standing for prospective relief based on credible threat of future enforcement
Fourth Amendment	Warrantless entry and seizure of property from encampment without meaningful process is unreasonable	Smith had no reasonable expectation of privacy; procedures (notice, appeal) were reasonable and sufficient	Smith did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy after notice; procedures were reasonable under Fourth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process	10-day notice inadequate, especially for vulnerable individuals; no meaningful pre-deprivation process	Procedures (notice, opportunity to appeal, property storage) are constitutionally sufficient	AMC’s notice and appeal process satisfied due process; no plausible allegation of constitutional violation
Preliminary Injunction	Immediate relief needed to prevent harm from future abatements	Smith cannot show likelihood of success on the merits	Denied – no likelihood of success, as no viable claim stated

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets pleading standard for facial plausibility)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (limits Article III standing to cases with real, not speculative, risk of future injury)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injunctive relief requires likely, not just possible, future injury)
Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012) (government may not seize/destroy unabandoned property without due process)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (outlines due process balancing test)
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets requirements for preliminary injunctions)
Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019) (homeless have standing to challenge anti-camping regulations)
United States v. Sandoval, 200 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2000) (temporary structures and privacy expectations on public land)