Roe v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

The plaintiffs are residents and businesses in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood. They allege that the City treats the neighborhood as a “containment zone” for narcotics activity and that City conduct has contributed to drug dealing, drug use, blocked building entrances, unsafe and unsanitary sidewalks, threats, fires, and other conditions. In the First Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, California’s Disabled Persons Act, and state nuisance law, as well as a federal Due Process Clause claim based on a state-created danger theory.

The City moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The City sought dismissal of all claims except the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.

Judicial Notice

The court took judicial notice of several public emergency proclamations and related public records. It took judicial notice of the existence of two newspaper articles, but not the truth of the facts reported in them. The court declined to take judicial notice of a letter from the plaintiffs’ counsel to the mayor.

Due Process Claim

The plaintiffs alleged that the City’s affirmative actions created or exposed them to danger. The court explained that the Due Process Clause generally does not require the government to protect people from third parties, subject to exceptions including a state-created danger. To state such a claim, plaintiffs must allege that government action created or exposed them to a particular danger, that the resulting injury was foreseeable, and that the government acted with deliberate indifference to a known danger.

The court held that the plaintiffs had not alleged harm severe enough to qualify as a constitutional “danger” under Ninth Circuit precedent. It therefore dismissed the sixth claim for relief, the state-created-danger claim, with leave to amend.

State-Law Claims and Immunity

The City argued that California governmental-immunity provisions barred the plaintiffs’ state-law claims. The court concluded that it could not determine from the complaint or the judicially noticed documents whether the plaintiffs’ allegations were based on actions related to the emergencies identified by the City. The court also stated that it could not yet determine whether the requested relief would circumvent the policies underlying governmental immunity. It therefore denied the motion to dismiss the state-law claims on immunity grounds.

California Disabled Persons Act

The court held that the plaintiffs stated a claim under California’s Disabled Persons Act because that claim may be based on an alleged ADA violation, and the court had previously found that the plaintiffs stated an ADA claim.

Nuisance Claims

The court held that the plaintiffs stated a private-nuisance claim. The plaintiffs alleged affirmative conduct by the City, so they did not need to allege that the City had a separate duty to act. They also alleged interference specifically affecting the use and enjoyment of their property, including blocked entrances and smoky fires outside an apartment. The court further concluded that the alleged City conduct was not implausibly remote from the claimed harms at the pleading stage.

The court also allowed the public-nuisance claim to proceed. Because the plaintiffs alleged that the conditions were both a private and public nuisance, the court held that they did not need to show an injury different in kind from the injury suffered by the general public.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss the sixth claim for relief, with leave to amend, and denied the motion in all other respects. The plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 21 days to correct the identified deficiency. If they do not, the dismissed claim will be dismissed with prejudice.