Winslow v. The City of Oakland
- Charles Breyer
- 3:20-cv-01510
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Winslow v. The City of Oakland, Judge Breyer dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the dispute was moot after the encampment closed.
Ernie Winslow and Michelle Bostamonte’s claims against the City of Oakland, the Oakland Department of Public Works, the Oakland Police Department, Mayor Libby Schaaf, Joe DeVries, and ten unnamed defendants were dismissed.
What happened
Winslow v. The City of Oakland involved Ernie Winslow and Michelle Bostamonte, who were experiencing homelessness and living at Oakland’s High Street encampment. They sued the City, city departments and officials, and unnamed defendants over the removal of the encampment and their property.
The court had allowed the City to clean and clear the encampment only if it followed its stated policies. The court later dissolved that order after the defendants said they had closed the encampment and complied with their policies. The defendants moved to dismiss, and the plaintiffs did not oppose the motion or respond to the court’s order to explain why the case should continue.
Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that there was no present dispute for which the court could provide effective relief. The court also stated that it would dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for failing to prosecute the case.
The detailed version
- Winslow v. The City of Oakland · No. 3:20-cv-01510
- Charles Breyer
- Nov. 24, 2020
Background
Ernie Winslow and Michelle Bostamonte sued the City of Oakland, the Oakland Department of Public Works, the Oakland Police Department, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, the City Administrator’s Assistant Joe DeVries, and ten unnamed defendants. The opinion states that Winslow and Bostamonte were experiencing homelessness and residing at Oakland’s High Street encampment.
The plaintiffs sought an order temporarily stopping the defendants from removing them and their property, or from taking such action without following the defendants’ stated policies for removing encampments. The court granted temporary relief and allowed the City to clean and clear the encampment only if it complied with those policies. The court dissolved that order after the defendants represented that they had closed the encampment and complied with their policies.
Motion and Responses
On October 16, 2020, the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The motion argued that the plaintiffs’ allegations concerned what might occur during the City’s February-March intervention at the High Street encampment and the validity of the related policy. The plaintiffs’ opposition was due October 30, 2020, but they did not file one.
On November 9, 2020, the court ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed as moot and for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to pursue the case. The plaintiffs did not respond by the November 23 deadline.
Ruling
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because mootness—the absence of a present dispute for which effective relief can be granted—is jurisdictional. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations were unrelated to any present case or controversy and that the plaintiffs’ failure to respond gave it no reason to reach a different conclusion.
The court’s footnote also states that it would dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.