Boyd v. City of San Rafael

Background

The plaintiffs included Camp Integrity, the San Rafael Homeless Union, and thirteen residents of the Mahon Creek Path encampment. They challenged San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 19.50, which restricted camping on certain public property and imposed limits on campsite size, density, and separation. The original ordinance limited campsites to one or two people and required 200 feet of separation between campsites. Violations could result in up to six months in jail and/or a $500 fine.

The court previously granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in part and denied it in part. The injunction limited enforcement of the original ordinance and required, among other things, that qualifying campsites could have up to four people and up to 400 square feet, with no more than 100 feet between campsites. It also required assistance for campers who needed to move and protection for individuals who had submitted requests for disability accommodations until those requests were addressed.

After that ruling, the City amended Chapter 19.50. The amended ordinance allowed campsites of 200 square feet for one person and 400 square feet for four people, imposed a 10-foot setback rather than a 100-foot separation requirement, and added a requirement that a person willfully violate the camping regulations before being charged. The City also submitted an updated map showing 203 available spaces for the 67 tents identified in the record.

The Motions

The City moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that the amendments made the plaintiffs’ lawsuit moot because the original ordinance was no longer law and the amendments addressed the issues raised in the complaint. In the alternative, the City moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction.

The plaintiffs argued that the amended ordinance remained objectionable, that the City might reenact the original provisions, and that some available encampment space was too far from the center of San Rafael to provide meaningful access to necessary resources.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the amendment of the original ordinance created a presumption that the case was moot. The plaintiffs therefore had to show a reasonable expectation that the City would reenact the original ordinance or similar provisions. The court found that they had not made that showing. It relied on the comprehensive amendment, the City’s implementation of the new rules, the updated map, and the City Manager’s statement that the City had no intention of reverting to the prior version if the preliminary injunction were lifted.

The court distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., where the defendant city had a history of reenacting challenged restrictions. The court found no comparable historical evidence that San Rafael had reinstated the original ordinance or specific provisions from it.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the amended ordinance raised the same issues as the original. It found that the amended ordinance allowed people to cluster more closely, added a willfulness requirement addressing due-process concerns, and did not show that people with disabilities could not obtain reasonable accommodations. The updated map showed spaces near the city center, and the plaintiffs did not contest the map’s sufficiency.

Ruling

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss because the case was moot. It also found a significant change in facts or law warranting dissolution of the preliminary injunction. Because the case was moot, the court concluded that it no longer had jurisdiction to maintain an injunction based on the original complaint. The court’s conclusion states: “The Court GRANTS the City’s motion to dismiss and dissolves the preliminary injunction.”