https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/15-35845/15-35845-2019-04-01.html
ROBERT MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE, No. 15-35845 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel amended
its opinion filed September 4, 2018, and reported at 902 F.3d 1031,
denied a petition for panel rehearing, denied a petition for rehearing
en banc on behalf of the court, and ordered that no further petitions
shall be entertained. In the amended opinion, the panel affirmed in part
and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment in favor of
the City of Boise in an action brought by six current or formerly
homeless City of Boise residents who alleged that their citations under
the City’s Camping and Disorderly Conduct Ordinances violated the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiffs
sought damages for the alleged violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two
plaintiffs also sought prospective declaratory and injunctive relief
precluding future enforcement of the ordinances.
In 2014, after this
litigation began, the ordinances were amended to prohibit their
enforcement against any homeless person on public property on any night
when no shelter had an available overnight space.
MARTIN V. CITY OF
BOISE 3 The panel first held that two plaintiffs had standing to pursue
prospective relief because they demonstrated a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether they faced a credible risk of prosecution on a night
when they had been denied access to the City’s shelters. The panel
noted that although the 2014 amendment precluded the City from enforcing
the ordinances when shelters were full, individuals could still be
turned away for reasons other than shelter capacity, such as for
exceeding the shelter’s stay limits, or for failing to take part in a
shelter’s mandatory religious programs. The panel held that although the
doctrine set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and its
progeny precluded most — but not all — of the plaintiffs’ requests for
retrospective relief, the doctrine had no application to plaintiffs’
request for an injunction enjoining prospective enforcement of the
ordinances. Turning to the merits, the panel held that the Cruel and
Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment precluded the
enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless
individuals with no access to alternative shelter. The panel held that,
as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot
criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public
property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Owens disagreed with
the majority’s opinion that Heck v. Humphrey did not bar plaintiffs’
claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. Judge Owens stated that a
declaration that the city ordinances are unconstitutional and an
injunction against their future enforcement would necessarily
demonstrate the 4 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE invalidity of plaintiffs’
prior convictions. Judge Owens otherwise joined the majority in full.
Concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Berzon stated that
on the merits, the panel’s opinion was limited and held only that
municipal ordinances that criminalize sleeping, sitting, or lying in all
public spaces, when no alternative sleeping space is available, violate
the Eighth Amendment. Judge Berzon further stated that a photograph
featured in Judge M. Smith’s dissent from the denial of rehearing en
banc, depicting tents on a Los Angeles public sidewalk, was not part of
the record, was unrelated, predated the panel’s decision and did not
serve to illustrate a concrete effect of the panel’s holding. Judge
Berzon stated that what the pre-Martin photograph did demonstrate was
that the ordinances criminalizing sleeping in public places were never a
viable solution to the homelessness problem. Dissenting from the denial
of rehearing en banc, Judge M. Smith, joined by Judges Callahan, Bea,
Ikuta, Bennett and R. Nelson, stated that the panel severely
misconstrued three areas of binding Supreme Court precedent, and that
the panel's opinion created several splits with other appellate courts.
Judge M. Smith further stated that the panel's holding has already begun
wreaking havoc on local governments, residents, and businesses
throughout the circuit. Judge M. Smith stated that the panel’s reasoning
will soon prevent local governments from enforcing a host of other
public health and safety laws, such as those prohibiting public
defecation and urination, and that the panel’s opinion shackles the
hands of public officials trying to redress the serious societal concern
of homelessness. MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE 5 Dissenting from the denial
of rehearing en banc, Judge Bennett, joined by Judges Bea, Ikuta, R.
Nelson, and joined by Judge M. Smith as to Part II, stated that the
panel’s decision, which allows pre-conviction Eighth Amendment
challenges, is wholly inconsistent with the text and tradition of the
Eighth Amendment.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 4, 2018.
Download PDF
No comments:
Post a Comment