Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco
| Decision Date | 15 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. C-93-4149 DLJ.,C-93-4149 DLJ. |
| Citation | 846 F. Supp. 843 |
| Parties | Bobby Joe JOYCE, Timothy E. Smith, Thomas O'Halloran and Jim Tullah, Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Bradley S. Phillips, Stephen M. Kristovich, Jeffrey L. Bleich, and Martin D. Bern, of Munger, Tolles & Olson, San Francisco, CA and Marcia Rosen, and Diane T. Chin, of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, appeared on behalf of plaintiffs.
Linda M. Ross, and Dennis Aftergut, of the San Francisco City Attorneys' Office and Donald J. Putterman, of Farella, Braun & Martel and Henry J. Escher III of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson & Falk, San Francisco, appeared on behalf of defendant.
Plaintiffs to this action seek preliminary injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a class of homeless individuals alleged to be adversely affected by the City and County of San Francisco's (the "City's") "Matrix Program." While encompassing a wide range of services to the City's homeless, the Program simultaneously contemplates a rigorous law enforcement component aimed at those violations of state and municipal law which arguably are committed predominantly by the homeless. Plaintiffs endorse much of the Program, challenging it not in its entirety, but only insofar as it specifically penalizes certain "life sustaining activities" engaged in by the homeless. Plaintiffs' Proposed Order Granting Mot. for Prel.Inj. at 2.
On February 23, 1994, counsel appeared before the Court at a hearing of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Appearing for plaintiffs were Bradley S. Phillips, Stephen M. Kristovich, Jeffrey L. Bleich and Martin D. Bern of Munger, Tolles & Olson, and Marcia Rosen and Diane T. Chin of the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. The City was represented by Linda M. Ross and Dennis Aftergut of the San Francisco City Attorneys' Office, and Donald J. Putterman of Farella, Braun & Martel. Having considered the arguments of counsel and the papers submitted, the Court hereby denies the requested injunction.
Institution of the Matrix Program followed the issuance of a report in April of 1992 by the San Francisco Mayor's Office of Economic Planning and Development, which attributed to homelessness a $173 million drain on sales in the City. Plaintiffs' Mot. at 8 & n. 6. In August of 1993, the City announced commencement of the Matrix Program, and the San Francisco Police Department began stringently enforcing a number of criminal laws. Plaintiffs' Mot. at 7.
The City describes the Program as City's Opp'n at 6.
An illustration of the enforcement efforts characteristic of the Program can be found in a four-page intra-departmental memorandum addressed to the Police Department's Southern Station Personnel. That memorandum, dated August 10, 1993 and signed by acting Police Captain Barry Johnson, defines "Quality of Life" violations and establishes a concomitant enforcement policy. See Plaintiffs' Mot. at 8; Rosen Decl., Exh. 7. Condemning a "type of behavior which tends to make San Francisco a less desirable place in which to live, work or visit", the memorandum directs the vigorous enforcement of eighteen specified code sections, including prohibitions against trespassing, public inebriation, urinating or defecating in public, removal and possession of shopping carts, solicitation on or near a highway, erection of tents or structures in parks, obstruction and aggressive panhandling. Rosen Decl., Exh. 7 at 2.
Id. at 2-3 (emphasis in original).
In a Police Department Bulletin entitled "Update on Matrix Quality of Life Program," dated September 17, 1993, Deputy Chief Thomas Petrini paraphrased General Order D-6, the source of the intended non-discriminatory policy of the Program's enforcement measures:
All persons have the right to use the public streets and places so long as they are riot engaged in specific criminal activity. Factors such as race, sex, sexual preference, age, dress, unusual or disheveled or impoverished appearance do not alone justify enforcement action. Nor can generalized complaints by residents or merchants or others justify detention of any person absent such individualized suspicion.
Petrini Decl., Exh. A at 1-2. The memorandum stated that the "rights of the homeless must be preserved", and included as an attachment a Department Bulletin on "Rights of the Homeless", which stated that:
All members of the Department are obligated to treat all persons equally, regardless of their economic or living conditions. The homeless enjoy the same legal and individual rights afforded to others. Members shall at all times respect these rights....
The Police Department has, during the pendency of the Matrix Program, conducted continuing education for officers regarding non-discriminatory enforcement of the Program. City's Opp'n at 8. When, in mid-August of 1993, concerns were raised by interests outside the Department about proper enforcement of the ordinances prohibiting lodging and sleeping in public parks, the Department issued a clarification of its policies. See id.; Petrini Decl. at ¶ 3, Exh. B. Again, in mid-November of 1993, inquiries were made of the Police Department concerning the confiscation of grocery store shopping carts. See City's Opp'n at 8; Petrini Decl. at ¶ 5. Police Chief Anthony Ribera responded with the issuance of a Department Bulletin establishing topical guidelines. See Petrini Decl. at Exh. D.
Since implementation of the Matrix Program, the City estimates that "according to unverified statistics kept by the Department", City's Opp'n at 6, approximately sixty percent of enforcement actions have involved public inebriation and public drinking, and that other "significant categories" include felony arrests for narcotics and other offenses, and arrests for street sales without a permit. Id. at 7.
Together, enforcement actions concerning camping in the park ..., sleeping in the park during prohibited hours ..., and lodging ... have constituted only approximately 10% of the total.
Plaintiffs, pointing to the discretion inherent in policing the law enforcement measures of the Matrix Program, allege certain actions taken by police to be "calculated to punish the homeless." Plaintiffs' Mot. at 9. As a general practice, the Program is depicted by plaintiffs as "targeting hundreds of homeless persons who are guilty of nothing more than sitting on a park bench or on the ground with their possessions, or lying or sleeping on the ground covered by or on top of a blanket or cardboard carton." Id. at 20. On one specific occasion, according to plaintiffs, police "cited and detained more than a dozen homeless people, and confiscated and destroyed their possessions, leaving them without medication, blankets or belongings to cope with the winter cold." Plaintiffs' Mot. at 9; T. Smith Decl. at ¶¶ 5-10; Homeless Decls. at 13, 56, 96.
The City contests the depiction of Matrix as a singularly focused, punitive effort designed to move "an untidy problem out of sight and out of mind." City's Opp'n at 1. Instead, the City characterizes the Matrix Program as City's Opp'n at 1.
The operation of the Matrix Program involves the Department of Social Services, the Department of Public Health, the Police Department and the Department of Public Works. City's Opp'n at 2-3. The City claims it has attempted to conjoin its law enforcement efforts with referrals to social service agencies. City's Opp'n at 8. One specific element of the Program seeks to familiarize the homeless with those services and programs available to them. City's Opp'n at 5. This is accomplished by the dispersal of Department of Social Service social workers throughout the City in order to contact homeless persons. Id.
Another element of the Matrix Program — the Night Shelter Referral Program — attempts to provide temporary housing to those not participating in the longer-term housing program. This effort was begun in December of 1993, and is designed to offer the option of shelter accommodations to those homeless individuals in violation of code sections...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. City of Sacramento
...1231 [expressing the same concerns in a case challenging the constitutionality of Sacramento's ordinance]; Joyce v. City & County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal.1994) 846 F.Supp. 843, 858 [same in a case challenging the City of San Francisco's actions in connection with the homeless].) The Powel......
-
Garber v. Mohammadi
...924 F. Supp. 989, 994 (D. Ariz. 1996) ("no court has ever held the homeless to be a suspect class"); Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco, 846 F. Supp. 843, 859 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (noting that, even if homeless plaintiff could "prove an intent to discriminate against the homeless," the c......
-
People v. Kellogg
...same arguments raised here. We are bound by that decision. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 30, 149 Cal.Rptr. 680.) Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal.1994) 846 F.Supp. 843 is inapposite because it did not involve a criminal prosecution for public intoxication, but rather a civil act......
-
State v. Adams
...status. “The district court relied exclusively on the analysis of Robinson and Powell by another district court in Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco, in which plaintiffs challenged certain aspects of San Francisco's comprehensive homelessness program on Eighth Amendment grounds. 846......
-
Policing Under Disability Law.
...See, e.g., Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2019) (amended opinion); Joyce v. City & County of San Francisco, 846 F. Supp. 843, 845-46 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551,1554 (S.D. Fla. (358.) BERNSTEIN ET AL., supra note 74, at 9 ("Al......
-
When punishing innocent conduct violates the Eighth Amendment: applying the Robinson doctrine to homelessness and other contextual "crimes".
...F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 1994); Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F. Supp. 344 (N.D. Tex. 1994); Joyce v. City & County of San Francisco, 846 F. Supp. 843 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 892 P.2d 1145 (Cal. 1995); Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 386 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994......
-
A PROSECUTORIAL SOLUTION TO THE CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS.
...criminal convictions by those who seek to rely on the involuntariness of their actions."); Joyce v. City & County of San Francisco, 846 F. Supp. 843, 858 (N.D. Cal. 1994) ("[H]omelessness does not analytically fit into a definition of a status."), vacated as moot, 87 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir.......
-
Domestic violence, flawed interpretations of 42 U.S.C. s. 1437D(l) (6), sexual harassment in public housing, and municipal violations of the Eighth Amendment: making women homeless and keeping them homeless.
...(156) Id. at 1131-32. The District Court in Jones relied on the application of Robinson in Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco, 846 F.Supp. 843 (N.D.Cal.1994). The facts in Joyce were markedly different than the facts in Jones. In Joyce, San Francisco had a shelter referral program un......