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

Background

The court considered two motions concerning an existing preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order issued before a final decision. Plaintiffs moved for an order requiring defendants to explain why they should not be held in contempt and asked to modify the preliminary injunction. Defendants also moved to modify the injunction. The motions concerned an encampment that had been located at Dunphy Park and then at Marinship Park.

Contempt motion

The court explained that plaintiffs had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendants violated a specific and definite requirement of the preliminary injunction. The court held that plaintiffs did not meet that burden.

The injunction did not specifically state what defendants had to do to protect campers from weather conditions. Plaintiffs also did not show by clear and convincing evidence that defendants failed to meet any such obligations. The court noted evidence that the City provided gravel, sleeping bags, hygiene kits, tarps, and tents, and coordinated with Marin County and the Red Cross to find shelter beds.

The court agreed that the injunction was implicitly based on defendants providing clean and usable bathrooms, but found no clear and convincing evidence that defendants failed to do so. It attributed the sewage problem, for example, to towels being stuffed down pipes rather than to the absence of larger sinks or automatic flush devices. The court also found no indication that defendants created the fecal-contamination problem or knew about it without attempting to address it. The parties were expected to continue discussing remediation with Judge Illman.

The court also addressed mobile showers. It stated that the injunction was implicitly based on mobile showers being available, but found no indication that the suspension of mobile showering was permanent rather than a temporary response to fecal contamination. Plaintiffs raised that issue only shortly before the hearing.

Finally, the court held that the injunction barred enforcement of the day-camping prohibition as to the encampment at issue, first at Dunphy Park and then at Marinship Park. It did not address day camping throughout the City. Any claim that day camps at another park were First Amendment activity was not properly raised and was not before the court. The court therefore denied plaintiffs’ contempt motion.

Plaintiffs’ requests to modify the injunction

The court denied plaintiffs’ request to prohibit enforcement of the overnight-camping prohibition. Plaintiffs argued that Marinship Park was no longer safe, but the court found that they had not sufficiently established that point, particularly because defendants proposed moving the encampment to nearby tennis courts as a temporary site.

The court also denied plaintiffs’ request to prohibit all restrictions on outdoor camping. Plaintiffs relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. City of Boise, but the court said plaintiffs had oversimplified that decision. As the court understood it, Martin barred a ban on all camping but did not prevent a city from designating permissible camping areas.

The court found moot plaintiffs’ request for improvements at Marinship Park because it was allowing defendants to relocate the encampment to the tennis courts while investigating and addressing conditions at the existing site. The court denied plaintiffs’ request for a special master to investigate the City Police Department’s handling of an incident involving Ms. Wild, finding sufficient evidence that the City had responded in a facially reasonable way.

Defendants’ requests to modify the injunction

Defendants asked the court to establish a code of conduct because of reported crimes and health and safety risks. The court said it was not inclined to manage the encampment in that detail, but stated that the parties could agree on a code of conduct, with or without Judge Illman’s assistance.

Defendants also asked to move the encampment to three City-owned tennis courts in or next to Marinship Park. They proposed wooden platforms, tents that could be secured to the platforms, and new tents without stakes for residents who wanted them. The court found insufficient evidence that the proposed site presented the safety risks plaintiffs identified or that moving there would cause the claimed injury to dignity. The fences were already present, were not erected for the purpose of restricting the encampment, and would not prevent people from coming and going.

The court modified the preliminary injunction to allow defendants to relocate the encampment to the tennis courts. Absent good cause, the court expected the site to include the wooden platforms described by defendants. The court also required defendants to maintain conditions protecting campers’ health and safety, including clean and operable bathrooms and mobile showers as promised.

Disposition

Judge Chen denied plaintiffs’ contempt motion and denied their motion to modify the preliminary injunction. Defendants’ motion to modify the preliminary injunction was granted in part and denied in part. The order disposed of Docket No. 55.