Hellard v. City of San Rafael
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-02001
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Hellard v. City of San Rafael, Judge White granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, allowed one amendment, and set a filing deadline.
James Hellard’s federal civil-rights claims were dismissed at the pleading stage for lack of standing and, alternatively, failure to state a claim, but he received one further opportunity to amend. His state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Hellard v. City of San Rafael, James Hellard sued the City of San Rafael, California Department of Transportation, Lynn Murphy, and Carl Huber under a federal civil-rights law. He claimed that his car was stolen, that he was exposed to dangerous conditions, and that a city-operated homeless encampment caused health problems. He also challenged the City’s anti-camping ordinance.
The court ruled that Hellard lacked standing, meaning he had not shown the required connection between his injuries and the defendants’ actions. The court found, among other things, that he had not been cited under the anti-camping ordinance, had lived under the freeway before the encampment existed, and had not shown that CalTrans caused his injuries. The court also said that, even assuming standing, his allegations did not adequately state claims.
Judge White granted defendants’ motions to dismiss but gave Hellard one further opportunity to amend because the court could not say amendment would be futile. He had to file an amended complaint by August 2, 2022; otherwise, the court said it would enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice and close the case. The court also denied Hellard’s motion to strike and motion for sanctions, denied the City’s objections as moot, and stated that his state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hellard v. City of San Rafael · No. 4:22-cv-02001
- Jeffrey White
- July 12, 2022
Background
James Hellard, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of San Rafael, the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), San Rafael Police Department Mental Health Liaison Officer Lynn Murphy, and San Rafael Police Sergeant Carl Huber. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights. He alleged violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments.
Hellard alleged that the City stole his car, forcing him to be exposed to COVID-19 and live in dangerous conditions on the streets. He also alleged that he was forced to live in a City-operated homeless encampment under Highway 101 and that the encampment caused permanent hearing loss and respiratory illness. He challenged San Rafael Municipal Code § 19.20.080(C)(3), which regulates camping on public property and includes an exception when no alternative shelter is available, subject to specified restrictions.
The record showed that Hellard had not been cited for violating the anti-camping ordinance. It also showed that he had been living under the freeway before the encampment was created and had refused an offer of a shelter bed in April 2022. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Standing
Standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show an actual injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a court ruling can remedy the injury. The defendants made a factual challenge to standing, so Hellard had to support the jurisdictional facts with competent evidence.
The court concluded that Hellard lacked standing to sue CalTrans because he did not allege facts showing that CalTrans caused any of his injuries. As to the City, Murphy, and Huber, the court found that Hellard had not shown a realistic threat that the anti-camping ordinance would be enforced against him because he had not been cited under it. The court also concluded that Hellard lacked standing for his due-process theory based on the state-created-danger doctrine because he admitted that he lived under the freeway before the City created the encampment. The court further found that he had not refuted the defendants’ evidence that the car allegedly taken from him did not belong to him and had been impounded because he was driving without a valid license.
Failure to State a Claim
Alternatively, the court concluded that Hellard’s allegations did not state a claim for relief against any defendant. It found that he alleged no facts explaining how CalTrans could be liable and did not identify specific actions by Murphy or Huber supporting individual claims. Regarding the City, the court found that Hellard did not allege a municipal custom or policy causing a constitutional violation, apart from his challenge to the anti-camping ordinance. The court also concluded that he had not alleged facts showing that the ordinance violated the Eighth Amendment under the applicable precedent.
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hellard’s state-law claims, including claims identified in the caption as battery, conversion, and trespass to chattel, and dismissed those claims without prejudice.
Rulings
The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. Because it could not say that amendment would be futile and because Hellard was proceeding without a lawyer, it granted him one further opportunity to amend his complaint. The court ordered him to file an amended complaint by August 2, 2022, and stated that failure to do so would result in a judgment of dismissal without prejudice and closure of the case.
The court denied Hellard’s motion to strike Sergeant Huber’s declaration and denied his motion for sanctions. It denied the City’s objections as moot. The opinion also states that Hellard’s motion for leave to amend was denied as moot, while the conclusion separately grants him one further opportunity to amend.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.