Ardgall v. City of Sausalito

Background

On March 31, 2023, the court ordered Madison Ardgall to show why her case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failing to prosecute, meaning failing to move the lawsuit forward. The court warned that a timely response was required and that the case would otherwise be dismissed without prejudice. The order was sent to her address of record and to other physical and email addresses appearing in her filings. The mailed copies were returned as undeliverable.

On April 1, 2023, Ms. Ardgall emailed the courtroom deputy. The court did not file the email because it contained personal information, but described it generally as stating that she was having difficulty accessing the internet and experiencing housing difficulties. Based on the email, the court discharged, or ended, the March 31 order to show cause.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that Ms. Ardgall still had an obligation to prosecute the lawsuit. It described her complaint as based on the closure of the Marinship Park encampment, her lack of an alternative place to stay, and her fear that she would be arrested simply for being homeless. The court noted that there was no indication that the City or its personnel had threatened to arrest her because of her homeless status.

The court again referred to the City’s representation that it did not currently plan to arrest anyone for sleeping outdoors or on public property when the person had no alternative housing available at night, under the identified city resolutions. The court considered whether that representation made the case moot. Mootness means that a court may no longer have a live dispute to decide.

The court recognized that a government’s voluntary decision to stop allegedly unlawful conduct does not necessarily make a case moot if the conduct could reasonably recur or its effects remain. It also stated that courts presume the government acts in good faith, while requiring the government to show that its changed position is established or permanent. Considering the history of the related Marinship Park case and the number of individual suits that followed, the court found that the City had shown its representation was made in good faith and was an entrenched, firm position.

Order

The court ordered Ms. Ardgall to show cause why the case should not be dismissed based on the City’s representation that it would comply with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. City of Boise. That decision held that an ordinance violates the Eighth Amendment when it imposes criminal sanctions on homeless people for sleeping outdoors on public property when no alternative shelter is available.

Ms. Ardgall’s response was due May 23, 2023. The order states that the case would automatically be dismissed with prejudice based on mootness grounds if she did not timely respond. It also states that a dismissal based on mootness would not prevent her from filing a new lawsuit if the City or its personnel later arrested her in violation of the Martin decision. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on April 25, 2023.