617 F.Supp.3d 1107
N.D. Cal.2022Background
- Plaintiff Cynthia Wills was living in her car and sleeping outdoors in Monterey in 2019; she obtained a restraining order against a homeless man who stalked and threatened her.
- Monterey Police Department allegedly refused to enforce the restraining order, repeatedly threatened Wills with citations/eviction for camping, issued an eviction notice, and in one incident an officer yelled at and spat toward her.
- Wills sued the City of Monterey, Monterey Police Department, Monterey Harbor Patrol and Montage Health asserting (inter alia) an Eighth Amendment claim (criminalizing homelessness), Fourteenth Amendment claims (equal protection/right to travel and substantive due process based on state-created danger), and state tort claims.
- The City moved to dismiss and to strike; the Court considered standing, Heck, Martin v. Boise, and state-law claim-presentation requirements.
- Court denied dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim (plausibly stated under Martin), dismissed the substantive-due-process claim with leave to amend (insufficient facts re: state-created danger), and dismissed the Equal Protection/right-to-travel and all state-law claims with prejudice for failure to allege compliance with the California Government Claims Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment — criminalizing homelessness | Wills: City codes collectively prohibit life-sustaining outdoor activities and effectively criminalize sleeping outside when shelter is unavailable. | City: Wills lacks standing for prospective relief; Heck bars damages; ordinances leave some public areas where one may sleep. | Court: Wills has standing for retrospective relief (not clearly for prospective); Heck does not bar damages here; Eighth Amendment claim survives under Martin v. Boise. |
| Equal Protection / Right to Travel | Wills: codes discriminate against homeless persons and restrict travel. | City: Codes are facially neutral and rationally related to public-safety/sanitation; no suspect class. | Court: Claim dismissed with prejudice (rational-basis review; plaintiff failed to allege lack of rational relation). |
| Substantive due process — state-created danger | Wills: MPD’s threats/citations forced her into hiding and MPD’s failure to enforce the restraining order exposed her to a specific, foreseeable danger. | City: Failure to act is not affirmative conduct; no particularized danger created; enforcement decisions do not amount to deliberate indifference. | Court: Theory based on enforcement of camping code dismissed with prejudice; restraining-order/failure-to-enforce theory dismissed but with leave to amend (plaintiff may plead affirmative conduct with temporal/spatial link). |
| State-law tort claims (negligence, IIED, NIED) & Government Claims Act | Wills: she mailed written claims and asserted federal civil-rights remedies should not be barred by state immunities. | City: Plaintiff failed to allege presentation of a timely, specific government claim as required by Cal. Gov. Code §§ 910, 911.2. | Court: Dismissed with prejudice for failure to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019) (Eighth Amendment bars criminally punishing sleeping outdoors when no shelter is available).
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (Section 1983 claims that would invalidate a conviction are barred unless conviction has been overturned).
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (U.S. 2021) (standing must be shown separately for each form of relief).
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard for plausible claims).
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim).
- Martinez v. City of Clovis, 943 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 2019) (state-created danger framework and requirement of affirmative conduct/deliberate indifference).
- Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist., 648 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2011) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge of and disregard for known risk).
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (classification by suspect traits triggers strict scrutiny).
- Bodde v. State of California, 32 Cal.4th 1234 (Cal. 2004) (compliance with the Government Claims Act is a condition precedent to suing a public entity).