Sonoma County looks to block homeless encampment sweep suit ahead of trial

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Sonoma County asked a federal judge on Monday to rule in its favor concerning a lawsuit brought by a local homeless advocacy organization that claims that the county is violating homeless people's constitutional rights by confiscating their possessions without notice during encampment sweeps.

Although U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria appeared receptive to some of the homeless group’s arguments, he said he was having trouble pinning down what they wanted him to do.

“I’ve had a hard time wrapping my head around what type of injunctive relief you’re seeking in the case at this point,” the Barack Obama appointee said.

The seven-year-old lawsuit was originally filed in 2018 to stop city and county officials from shutting down “Roseland Village,” a homeless encampment in Santa Rosa, California, over claims that the county’s seizure of homeless people’s property violated their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights.

The homeless plaintiffs, along with the volunteer organization behind the lawsuit, Homeless Action, argued that the county hasn’t provided adequate placements for their homeless population, citing a lack of shelter space countywide.

However, the county argues that this is a “much different case” than when it was filed and that many of the legal obligations it used to have to these homeless people “no longer exist” after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Grant’s Pass v. Johnson, where the high court determined a camping ban was not unconstitutional.

“We have no obligation to offer anyone shelter,” Matthew Lilligren, who represented the county, said in the courtroom.

The county now claims that Homeless Action can’t establish standing because there were no injuries to its core activities caused by the county’s sweeps.

In court, Homeless Action explained that it is seeking a court order to prevent the county from seizing homeless people's property without notice, arguing that taking their blankets and tents and moving them from place to place not only exposes them to the elements, but also undermines their core mission of providing services to homeless people by making them more difficult to track.

Additionally, the volunteer association specified that it was not seeking a blanket remedy to prevent encampment enclosures across the county in every case. Instead, it says it is asking for an order that compels the county to do it more humanely.

The organization also asked the court for a measure that accommodates the circumstances of homeless people with disabilities during the encampment sweeps.

“Is it going to solve homelessness in Sonoma County? No,” said Melissa Antoinette Morris of the Public Interest Law Project, who represented Homeless Action.

“It’s not about if it’s going to solve homelessness. It’s about if there’s a workable, one-size-fits-all injunction here,” Chhabria countered. “That’s virtually impossible because of how individualized each person’s circumstances are.”

The judge said that the relationship between the injuries it claimed and the relief it seeks seemed “pretty attenuated,” at times.

However, the judge also noted that in cases involving homeless people, “a certain stability” is lent to the defendants because of the ever-changing circumstances of the plaintiffs’ lives. He said this could be an appropriate reason for the organization to be a plaintiff in the case.

At one point, Chhabria said that the low threshold for standing in the Ninth Circuit could be reason enough to allow the homeless group’s lawsuit to proceed.

“Nothing in the Ninth Circuit is required for standing,” joked Chhabria, to much laughter in the courtroom.

The length of the lawsuit appeared to weigh on the parties at times, with the county expressing concern that this case could go on for another seven years. Chhabria assured it that the case is currently scheduled for trial in fall 2026, a date he plans to keep to.

The judge did not indicate when he would issue a ruling, although he said he would be giving it “a little more thought.”

Attorneys for both sides declined to comment on the hearing.

This case was filed in the Northern District of California and heard in the Phillip Burton Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, California.