OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — San Francisco homeless residents lost their bid to ensure that city officials comply with a federal judge’s block on encampment sweeps, but the judge on Thursday also demanded more transparency from the city.
U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu denied without prejudice a request by plaintiffs living unsheltered in San Francisco that she appoint a special master to help enforce the injunction Ryu ordered. But she ordered the city to file a declaration on staff training within two weeks, and to meet with Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros to discuss improving how police officers communicate with unhoused people. The plaintiffs must file a supplemental brief within one month.
Ryu ruled this past December that San Francisco officials cannot threaten enforcement of "sit/lie" or public sleeping laws against involuntarily homeless individuals, meaning people who do not have access to shelter or permanent housing.
The plaintiffs say the city regularly fines and removes them from public property, often seizing or destroying their property, violating their Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights. They also accused the city of sweeping encampments after the injunction was ordered, during the atmospheric river storms that drenched the state during this year’s winter.
City officials appealed Ryu’s injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and argued in court Wednesday that the ruling was too vague to know which parts of city ordinances could be enforced.
Mayor London Breed, backed by county supervisors and coalitions of wealthy donors, told a crowd assembled outside the appellate court that the city is prepared to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
The crux of the case rests on precedent set in Martin v. Boise, barring cities without enough shelter beds from moving unhoused people — and the fact that San Francisco does not have enough shelter for all unhoused people, as Ryu determined in January. The plaintiffs point to a waitlist of at least 400 people, while the city has said it offers unhoused people shelter before conducting encampment sweeps.
In federal court Thursday, Ryu expressed concern that some police officers who interact with unhoused residents may not be trained on the injunction and rules for when they can and cannot move people.
The judge also chastised the plaintiffs for not clearly explaining how, by law, the city had violated her order.
“You’ve left me here to guess, or try to figure out what you’re arguing,” she said. “There’s a lot of assumptions that are being made in the plaintiffs' side of the papers. These are all legal questions that need to be teased out.”
Attorney Kevin Wu, representing the plaintiffs, said they have reason to think the city is not following rules about keeping records, such as activating body cameras or recording property confiscations, which will complicate their discovery process.
“They do give us concerns that we don't have enough at our disposal to monitor the city’s actions in real time, and prevent any irreparable harm that may be befalling plaintiffs,” he said.
“You have to first show me that there’s a problem,” Ryu told Wu. “You didn’t do the work I need from you to be able to render a decision.”
Ryu told the city that the record shows there is ambiguity around people’s rights, and misunderstandings that cops could prevent.
“Is San Francisco open to coming up with clearer communication about people’s rights," she asked, "so that homeless individuals who encounter police have a better understanding of what’s going on?”
After saying the city does not believe the plaintiffs gave evidence of non-compliance, Wang agreed that officials are open to improving communication with the public.
Ryu said she is also concerned about declarations submitted as proof that city officials destroyed people’s property without cause.
“Some of them felt like pretty clear violations,” Ryu said, noting one description from an unsheltered woman who said a worker took her jewelry, put it in their pocket and told her that it belonged to the city. She noted the city hadn't submitted evidence of having trained all workers who interact with unhoused people on what they may and may not do.
Miguel Gradilla, an attorney for San Francisco, said most workers engaging with unhoused people discuss their property rights every day, but was not sure how many public works staffers may be trained on the rules for handling people’s property.
Before ending Thursday's hearing the judge also recommended better communication on both sides.
“My sense from the filings is that communication is not great,” Ryu said. “But that’s your choice on how you want to litigate the case.”
The case is slated for a bench trial starting in April 2024.
Follow @nhanson_reports
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
