Harrison v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Patrina Harrison alleged that she has physical disabilities and lives at the Arnett Watson Apartments through the San Francisco Local Operating Subsidy Program, a federally funded housing program. She alleged that, after the COVID-19 pandemic, the City purchased and installed homeless tent housing encampments in the Tenderloin, including directly below her apartment windows. On July 18, 2020, two City-installed tents caught fire, sending smoke into her apartment and triggering a severe asthma attack.

Harrison requested a reasonable accommodation: either removal of the tents under her windows or a transfer to a building in another neighborhood. She alleged that the City denied both requests. The case had undergone several earlier amendments and was later consolidated with a related lawsuit. The City moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally recognized claim.

Claims and Analysis

Harrison brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of due process and equal protection, claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and a claim under California Civil Code section 3479. The City sought dismissal of those claims, while leaving the state-law negligence and nuisance claims unresolved.

For the due-process claim, Harrison relied on the state-created-danger doctrine. The court stated that it had already dismissed substantially similar claims in the earlier rounds of this case and had not granted leave to add the claim in the consolidated amended complaint. The court therefore dismissed the due-process claim with prejudice.

For equal protection, Harrison alleged that the City approved transfers for 35 other able-bodied residents but denied her request. The court held that this was a new set of allegations beyond the limited permission previously given to amend and did not cure the earlier pleading problem. It dismissed the equal-protection claim with prejudice.

The court concluded that Harrison adequately alleged a qualifying disability and participation in a federally funded program. But it held that she did not provide enough facts for the court to infer that a transfer was a reasonable accommodation required for meaningful access to housing. The court also found insufficient facts supporting her conclusory allegations that the City intentionally discriminated against her or acted with deliberate indifference to her disability. Because the court had previously dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims on the same grounds, it dismissed them with prejudice.

The court also dismissed the section 3479 claim with prejudice because it had previously dismissed the identical claim with prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss. Harrison’s due-process and equal-protection claims, ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, and section 3479 claim were dismissed with prejudice. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims after federal claims are dismissed—over Harrison’s remaining negligence and nuisance claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the court stated that Harrison may refile them in state court. The order was signed by United States District Judge Jon S. Tigar.