New homeless suit returns cities to judge they tried to avoid

Three Orange County cities that won the recusal of a federal judge in a homeless civil rights lawsuit are back under his jurisdiction in a new lawsuit aimed at halting the cross-city transportation of homeless people.

Assigned the case on Monday, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter already has ruled in the defense's favor on a key issue, rejecting early Tuesday a temporary restraining order that sought to halt San Clemente, Dana Point and San Juan Capistrano from transporting homeless people to a county-operated armory in Santa Ana.

The City of Santa Ana sought the temporary restraining order as part of a civil rights lawsuit filed against the cities and the County of Orange that accuses them of constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment, unequal protection of the law and lack of due process.

The alleged victims are residents of Santa Ana who, according to the lawsuit, are deprived of core services and quality of life because the city spends so much money on homeless people because the defendant cities won't do their share. Other cities moving people to the armory in Santa Ana "would effectively increase the impacts of homelessness on the City of Santa Ana by adding individuals to the already disproportionate share hosted in Santa Ana," according to the 17-page complaint filed by Santa Ana Assistant City Attorney John M. Hunt.

"Regrettably, this is the exact reverse of the more global solution long advocated by Santa Ana," Hunt wrote. City of Santa Ana v. County of Orange, 20CV-00069 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 13, 2020).

It's the latest local fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to review Martin v. Boise, a politically controversial 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal ruling that says people can't be stopped from sleeping outside unless shelter is available. Officials in the south Orange County cities joined dozens of other jurisdictions in filing amicus curiae briefs in favor of the Martin v. Boise certiorari petition. The Orange County sheriff's department is refusing to enforce anti-camping ordinances in any of its patrol areas, including the three defendant cities, because of a lack of shelter.

As detailed in the complaint, Santa Ana has long been the center of homelessness in Orange County, including an encampment that existed for several years next to the Central Justice Center in the Civic Center. That camp was dismantled in April 2018 as part of a broader dismantling of a 1,000-person camp in nearby Anaheim.

Carter oversaw those actions as part of a lawsuit filed by civil rights attorneys who wanted to stop the Anaheim camp from being broken apart. His approach included holding court hearings at the encampment, where he, attorneys and public officials walked miles to inspect the area and talk to the people who lived there. Santa Ana and other north county cities have since settled the case and are in a consent decree that gives Carter jurisdiction over homeless services and sends any disputes to him.

Plaintiffs' attorneys Brooke A. Weitzman of Elder Law and Disability Rights Center and Santa Monica sole practitioner Carol A. Sobel filed a similar lawsuit against San Clemente, Dana Point and San Juan Capistrano over the trio's alleged lack of homeless services. It was assigned to Carter, but the defendant cities hired Jones Day, which brought a rare motion to recuse Carter over potential bias against the cities. U.S. District Judge James V. Selna granted the motion in June 2019, and the new judge, U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson, dismissed the claims.

The new lawsuit is in response to recent statements from San Clemente city Council members about plans to bus homeless people to the county-owned armories in Fullerton and Santa Ana. It's unclear if the cities will again seek Carter's recusal. City officials contacted Tuesday declined on-the-record comment. Carter's first move in the case also was in their favor, with him saying the anticipatory harms stated in Santa Ana's temporary restraining order request "are too speculative to be actionable at this time."

A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled Feb. 4.