Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Coalition on Homelessness and seven current or formerly homeless San Francisco residents sued the City and County of San Francisco and five San Francisco agencies. They challenged the City’s response to homelessness, including its handling of homeless encampments and personal property.

The court had previously granted a preliminary injunction in part on the plaintiffs’ Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims. The Ninth Circuit later vacated the portion concerning the Eighth Amendment and affirmed the portion requiring the City to comply with its “bag and tag” policy. That policy governs when the Department of Public Works may remove personal property from public places for temporary storage and retrieval.

The policy generally requires unattended personal property collected for storage to be bagged, tagged, and taken to the Public Works Operations Yard. It provides for storage for 90 days and describes how owners may retrieve their property. The policy permits immediate disposal of certain items, including items presenting an immediate health or safety risk, perishable items, abandoned property, and trash or debris. It distinguishes temporarily unattended property from abandoned property and instructs staff to collect and store items when they reasonably doubt whether the items are trash.

Motion to Enforce

The plaintiffs alleged that city workers continued to take and destroy personal belongings during encampment operations even when the belongings were not abandoned, trash, or hazardous materials. They submitted more than two dozen witness declarations describing interactions with the Department of Public Works and other city workers. They requested additional employee training, periodic sworn compliance reports, and appointment of a special master to help implement and monitor the injunction.

The City argued that the Department of Public Works was properly discarding items allowed to be discarded under the policy, including items mixed with property that could be discarded. The City also submitted declarations describing employee training through presentations, weekly meetings and reminders, and on-the-job supervision.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Ryu found that the City’s evidence showed approximately 100 Department of Public Works employees had work responsibilities requiring interaction with homeless individuals about cleaning. These employees worked on the Zone, Hot Spot, and Special Projects teams. The City said it trained them through a PowerPoint presentation, weekly refreshers and reminders, and on-the-job training from supervisors.

The court concluded that the evidence fell short of showing meaningful training as of September 2023. The PowerPoint presentation largely repeated the policy and did not address important practical issues, such as distinguishing unattended property from abandoned property or determining whether property was mixed with items presenting an immediate health or safety risk. The City did not show which employees had received the presentation, how many attended, or whether attendance was mandatory. Meeting records also did not show meaningful instruction on the policy’s requirements, and the City provided no concrete examples of supervisors addressing mishandling or violations.

The court found the shortcomings especially significant because the earlier injunction order had identified evidence of widespread seizure and destruction of unabandoned property, and the evidence submitted on this motion suggested that violations were continuing.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the preliminary injunction concerning the Fourth Amendment claim.

The court granted the motion in part by requiring the parties to meet and confer immediately about the content, attendance, and frequency of future training for Department of Public Works employees. The parties also had to address how to document that training, including possible periodic sworn declarations to the court. They were required to submit a joint letter brief, or separate proposals if they could not agree, by August 19, 2024. The City also had to submit updated declarations by August 26, 2024, describing in detail training that had occurred since its earlier supplemental evidence.

The court denied without prejudice the request to appoint a special master. It also denied without prejudice the request for regular compliance reports, explaining that the plaintiffs had detailed that request for the first time in their response and that requiring the proposed logs, sorting records, decision-maker information, and photographs would impose burdens not then justified. The court also denied the City’s administrative motion to disregard new evidence or file a surreply, and denied as moot the related motion to seal documents. The court did not consider several unauthorized filings and ruled on specified evidentiary objections as moot or overruled them as described in the order.