Hayman v. Block
Decision Date | 14 January 1986 |
Citation | 222 Cal.Rptr. 293,176 Cal.App.3d 629 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Reverend Ann HAYMAN, Thomas Norman, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Sherman BLOCK, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Defendant and Respondent. B014508. |
ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Paul L. Hoffman, Mark D. Rosenbaum, Joan W. Howarth, Susan D. McGreivy, Robert C. Black, Elaine Burton, for plaintiffs and appellants.
De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel, Frederick R. Bennett, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for defendant and respondent.
Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Defendant Sherman Block, Sheriff of Los Angeles County. The judgment is affirmed.
This is a taxpayers' suit brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 526a (injunctive relief) and 1060 (declaratory relief), and 42 United States Code section 1983.
Plaintiff Reverend Ann Hayman is Director of the Mary Magdalene Project, a mission in Hollywood founded to rehabilitate prostitutes. Plaintiff Thomas Norman is a volunteer working with women at Catharsis, an association organized to aid women who were formerly engaged in prostitution. The defendants were the City Attorney of Los Angeles, 1 the Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles, 2 and the Sheriff of Los Angeles County. Only Sherman Block, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, is respondent in this appeal.
Appellants' complaint was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court on May 10, 1983, and it alleged that respondent Block, as the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, is responsible for policing the unincorporated parts of the county and for maintaining the Los Angeles County jails. Appellants alleged that respondent had violated his oath and duties through a practice and policy of discriminatory and unconstitutional enforcement of Penal Code sections 370 and 372, 3 and through the use of discriminatory arrest and bail procedures. "On information and belief," appellants alleged that: "thousands" of men and women are being harassed, mistreated and arrested as public nuisances; such persons, believed by law enforcement to be streetwalking prostitutes, are being illegally detained, searched and photographed; photographs of those persons are on file at the police station; their money is taken from them and bail denied to them; black women have been arrested far more than white women and men; men and women pedestrians have been "herded together and marched ... into another jurisdiction" and forced "to stand at attention in the rain and cold with arms handcuffed and raised overhead for long periods of time." Appellants alleged that these practices were part of an effort to suppress streetwalking prostitution in the West Hollywood area of Los Angeles.
Appellants did not allege or contend that the public nuisance statute was unconstitutional. 4 Their allegation was that the Sheriff has promulgated guidelines and engaged in practices in enforcing the sections against prostitutes which constitute violations of the prostitutes' constitutional rights.
Respondent filed a general denial of the allegations of the complaint about June 3, 1983.
On November 19, 1984, appellants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication of Issues Without Substantial Controversy under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, against all the defendants. In support of this motion appellants filed declarations and depositions. In response, respondent filed objections to evidence, certain declarations, and a statement in opposition as well as respondent's own motion for summary judgment. The other defendants, the City Attorney and Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles, filed similar motions. All of the motions were heard together on March 12, 1985.
At the hearing of March 12, 1985, the objections of the respondent to certain of plaintiffs' declarations and to some of plaintiffs' evidence were sustained. The declarations of Goodbred, Stamler and Burton, filed by plaintiffs, were stricken because of defective jurats.
A stipulation was entered into between plaintiffs and respondent. 5 The stipulation was part of plaintiffs'-appellants' written opposition to defendant's motions for summary judgment, and stated:
The statement accepted by plaintiffs-appellants read as follows:
Respondent's most significant evidence was a declaration by Michael Quinn, a Lieutenant in the Sheriff's Department. The declaration states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna
...Land & Farming Co. v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 334, 341, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 [pollution of water]; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 644, 222 Cal.Rptr. 293 [blocking right of way]; People v. Mason (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 348, 353, 177 Cal.Rptr. 284 [noise emanating from ba......
-
St. Sava Mission Corp. v. Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese
...the evidence objected to is admissible, unless the objection is waived by failure to renew it on appeal. (Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 640, 222 Cal.Rptr. 293.) St. Sava has not renewed its objections to the Diocese's evidence by pointing to any evidentiary errors below that ma......
-
Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd.
...of course, is and should be difficult to meet. Summary judgment is not "a substitute for a full trial." (Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal. App.3d 629, 639, 222 Cal.Rptr. 293.) "The purpose of the summary judgment procedure is not to try the issues but merely to discover, through the medium of......
-
Taylor v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.
...233 Cal.Rptr.3d 295.) Affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ultimate facts. ( Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639, 222 Cal.Rptr. 293 ; United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1018, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 834.) Though plaintiffs' ev......