Cobine v. City of Eureka

250 F.Supp.3d 423

Stacy COBINE, Nanette Dean, Christina Ruble, Lloyd Parker, Gerrianne Schulze, Sarah Hood, Aaron Kangas, Lynette Vera, Aubrey Short, Marie Anntonette Kinder, and John Travis,

v.CITY OF EUREKA, Eureka Police Department, and Andrew Mills, in his official capacity as Chief of Police, Defendants.

No. C 16-02239 JSW.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Signed April 25, 2017

Shelley Kay Mack, Peter Eric Martin, Martin & Mack LLP, Arcata, CA, for Plaintiff.

Cyndy Day–Wilson, City of Eureka, Eureka, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

JEFFREY S. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Now before the Court is the motion filed by the City of Eureka, the Eureka Police Department and Andrew Mills, Chief of Police ("collectively "Eureka") to dismiss the first amended complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Having carefully reviewed the parties' papers, considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the Court HEREBY DENIES and GRANTS IN PART the motion to dismiss.

The first amended complaint was filed by eleven homeless individuals in the City of Eureka, individually and now on behalf of all others similarly situated. Originally, the complaint was filed by plaintiffs Stacy Cobine, Nanette Dean, Christina Ruble, Lloyd Parker, Gerrianne Schulze, Sarah Hood, Aaron Kangas, Lynette Vera, Aubrey Short, Marie Anntonette Kinder, and John Travis (collectively "Plaintiffs") in tandem with a motion for a temporary retraining order ("TRO") seeking to enjoin Eureka from removing the homeless individuals and their belongings from an encampment at the Palco Marsh on the Eureka Waterfront on May 2, 2016.

On the morning of May 2, 2016, after consideration of the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, and the record, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion for a TRO.

After the clearing of the Palco Marsh encampment, on May 17, 2016, Eureka moved to dismiss this action. Thereafter Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, thereby mooting the motion to dismiss. The amended complaint updates the factual predicate of this matter post-eviction and seeks to bring the action as a putative class action by and on behalf of homeless residents of the City of Eureka for violations of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Article I, Sections 1, 7, and 17 of the California Constitution. Plaintiffs allege four claims for relief: (1) violation of prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and California Constitution Sections 7 and 17; (2) violation of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and California Constitution Article I, Section 7 ; (3) violation of the right to be secure from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment; and (4) violation of the right to privacy pursuant to the United States Constitution and the California Constitution Article I, Section 1.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, a group of eleven homeless individuals, have sued Eureka for alleged violations of their constitutional and statutory rights. According to the allegations in their complaint, Plaintiffs contend that Eureka announced that on May 2, 2016, it was going to evict a sizable community of homeless people who were then living at an encampment at the Palco Marsh. (First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶ 2.) The Palco Marsh is located on City property near the Bayshore Mall in Eureka, California, and is a portion of land that had been occupied by a homeless population since 2002. (Id. )

On March 18, 2016, the City of Eureka established a deadline of May 2, 2016 for the removal of the homeless encampment then in violation of Eureka's anti-camping ordinance, codified at Eureka Municipal Code section 93.02. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 191.) On March 22, 2016, the Eureka Police Department distributed flyers entitled "Notice to Vacate" to homeless individuals living at the Palco Marsh. (Id. at ¶ 192.) The Notice indicated that it was a violation of the Municipal Code to camp on public or private property within the City of Eureka and that all personal property had to be removed prior to May 2, 2016 or the City would remove the property. (Id. ) The Notice further indicated that any property that was removed could be reclaimed by arrangement with the City within 90 days of its removal. (Id. at ¶ 193.) Lastly, the Notice indicated that any person who failed to comply with the provisions of the Notice and to vacate the area of all possessions would be prosecuted. (Id. )

The City of Eureka's anti-camping ordinance provides:

§ 93.02 Camping Permitted Only in Specifically Designated Areas

(A) Except as provided herein, no person shall camp in any public of private space or public or private street, except in areas specifically designed for such use. CAMP shall mean residing in or using a public or private space for living accommodation purposes, such as sleeping activities, or making preparations to sleep (including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping), or storing personal belongings (including but not limited to clothing, sleeping bags, bedrolls, blankets, sheets, luggage, backpacks, kitchen utensils, cookware, and similar material), or making any fire or using any tents, regularly cooking meals, or living in a parked vehicle. These activities constitute camping when it reasonably appears, in light of all the circumstances, that a person is using a public space as a living accommodation regardless of his/her intent or the nature of any other activities in which he/she might also be engaging. PRIVATE shall mean affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from the public generally. All police officers are hereby charged with the enforcement of the camping provisions of this chapter.

Eureka, Cal. Municipal Code § 93.02. Public space includes parks, beaches, public parking lots or public areas. Public streets are defined to include any public street or public sidewalk, including public benches. (Id. )

Penalties for violation of the anti-camping code are provided by Eureka Municipal Code section 10.99, which provides that "[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this code.... Any person violating any of such provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor ... [and] shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment." Eureka, Cal. Municipal Code § 10.99.

The City of Eureka planned to evict the homeless occupants of the Palco Marsh in order to tear down several concrete structures located in the vicinity and to make way for a new segment of the Eureka Waterfront Trail. According to the parties' submissions, this eviction has been completed.

Plaintiffs allege that in July 2016, the Eureka City Council unanimously passed a municipal ordinance codifying the process the City had been following with regard to personal property stored in public areas. (FAC ¶ 209.) The ordinance, now codified at Eureka Municipal Code Section 130.14, provides that " ‘no Person shall Store Personal Property in Public Area,’ and ‘All Stored Personal Property in Public Area may be impounded by the City’ pursuant to 24–hours written notice. Impounded personal property is to be stored by the City for ninety (90) Days, and if not claimed within that time period, may be discarded. The proposed ordinance further provided that ‘bulky items’—except for tents, any item too large to fit in a closed 60–gallon bin—and those items deemed by Defendants to pose ‘an immediate threat to the health or safety of the public’ may be immediately removed without prior notice and summarily discarded." (Id. )

The Court shall address further specific details as necessary in the remainder of its order.

ANALYSIS

A. Applicable Legal Standard for Motion to Dismiss.

A motion to dismiss is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where the pleadings fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court's "inquiry is limited to the allegations in the complaint, which are accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Lazy Y Ranch LTD v. Behrens , 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). Even under the liberal pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain , 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) ).

Pursuant to Twombly , a plaintiff must not merely allege conduct that is conceivable but must instead allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). If the allegations are insufficient to state a claim, a court should grant leave to amend, unless amendment would be futile. See, e.g., Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc. , 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990) ; Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc. , 911 F.2d 242, 246–47 (9th Cir. 1990).

As a general rule, "a district court may not consider any...