Sausalito/Marin County Chapter of the California Homeless Union v. City of…

Background

The case involved an encampment of about 20 people in or adjacent to Dunphy Park in Sausalito. The encampment began around December 28, 2020, and grew during the COVID-19 pandemic. The campers had tents, a communal kitchen, a portable toilet, and a handwashing station. The opinion states that they appeared to be living peacefully and that there was no evidence COVID-19 had spread among them.

The plaintiffs were the Sausalito/Marin County Chapter of the California Homeless Union and several Dunphy Park campers. They sued the City of Sausalito, the mayor, the chief of police, the city manager, and the supervisor of the Department of Public Works. They asserted federal and state substantive due process claims. Substantive due process generally protects against government action that unlawfully threatens a person’s fundamental rights or bodily safety.

The Sausalito City Council adopted Resolution No. 6009, which prohibited daytime camping and allowed overnight camping only in a designated area of Marinship Park for people who had no indoor sleeping option. The resolution characterized Dunphy Park as unsuitable because of its proximity to Richardson’s Bay and the lack of restrooms, showers, and other sanitary services. The City posted notices to vacate and attempted to clear the encampment on February 16, 2021, but determined that clearing it was not feasible that day.

Plaintiffs’ arguments and the proposed enforcement

The plaintiffs argued that the daytime-camping ban would force campers to dismantle and rebuild the encampment every day, causing dispersal and increasing the risk of COVID-19 transmission. They relied on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance stating that, when individual housing is unavailable, people living unsheltered or in encampments should be allowed to remain where they are because clearing encampments can increase infectious-disease spread.

The plaintiffs also argued that Marinship Park was unsafe because it was next to a boat-crushing operation and could expose campers to lead-based paint dust and fiberglass. The court found that the plaintiffs’ evidence on the frequency, intensity, and dust levels of the operation was limited, but also found that the City had submitted no evidence establishing the environmental safety of the proposed site or showing that it had studied those risks.

Legal standard

The court applied the standard for a preliminary injunction. A plaintiff seeking that relief must show a likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff, and that an injunction serves the public interest. Under the Ninth Circuit’s sliding-scale approach, a plaintiff may obtain an injunction by raising serious questions on the merits when the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor and irreparable injury is shown.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that enforcing Resolution No. 6009 would likely cause irreparable harm. It found that the daytime-camping ban would likely disperse campers, require repeated interaction while breaking down and rebuilding tents and communal facilities, and make it harder to maintain the communal kitchen and receive donated food and supplies. The court also noted burdens on campers with physical impairments or disabilities.

The court found the plaintiffs’ showing concerning the move to Marinship Park less strong but still sufficient to raise serious questions. The proposed site was next to the boat-crushing operation, and the City had not provided data or other evidence showing that the area was environmentally safe for an encampment. The court also noted that bathrooms at Marinship Park lacked paper goods, soap, and sanitizers on the day of the attempted move.

The court found that the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs. Although the City cited the lack of permanent bathrooms and showers at Dunphy Park, the campers had obtained a portable toilet and handwashing station, and the park had bathrooms within walking distance. Based on its site visit, the court also found a hose connection and possible locations where mobile showers could operate near Dunphy Park. The City provided no evidence of sewage problems, environmental degradation, or contamination caused by the encampment.

For the merits showing, the court considered the Ninth Circuit’s state-created-danger theory. That theory can support a substantive due process claim when government action affirmatively places someone in danger and officials act with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger. The court found that the plaintiffs had at least raised a serious question that the daytime-camping ban created health risks and that the City acted with reckless disregard by adopting the ban despite the cited public-health guidance. The court found the plaintiffs’ showing regarding relocation weaker but still sufficient, particularly because the City had not taken concrete steps to establish that the proposed site was safe.

The court also concluded that the public interest favored an injunction because the proposed actions appeared likely to increase, rather than decrease, health risks to the campers and surrounding community.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It enjoined the defendants and those acting with them from enforcing the daytime-camping prohibition in Resolution No. 6009 and from closing or clearing the Dunphy Park encampment.

The court stated that the daytime-camping portion of the injunction might need to be revisited as the COVID-19 situation changed. It also stated that the City could seek to modify or dissolve the protection against clearing if it demonstrated that there were no toxic risks at the Marinship Park site and that the move could be safely completed. The order set a case-management conference for April 1, 2021.

This was a preliminary-injunction ruling based on the record at that stage, not a final determination after trial of the plaintiffs’ due process claims.