US judge won’t stay orders to house all homeless in LA County in 6 months

A federal judge on Monday refused to stay his injunction requiring the city and county of Los Angeles to provide housing for all homeless people in the city within six months. He said his sweeping order does not interfere with any government function but rather serves as an accountability booster.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California is presiding over a lawsuit filed by a coalition of business operators, property owners and homeless people in skid row. Carter issued a preliminary injunction telling the governments to deposit $1 billion into an escrow account almost immediately and find a place for every homeless person in the city by Oct. 23.

The city and county on Friday filed ex parte applications to stay Carter's injunction pending appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the judge's order intrudes on the duties and authority of elected officials. LA Alliance for Human Rights et al v. County of Los Angeles et al., 2:20-CV-02291 (C.D. Cal., filed March 10, 2020),

Carter granted and denied in part the government's stay requests on Monday, writing, "The failure of settlement negotiations over the last few months has been a source of concern for the court," and "the city and county continue to squabble over financial responsibility for addressing the homelessness crisis."

The judge agreed to a 60-day pause on the $1 billion to be placed in escrow. But he wants the governments to write a report showing how the money will be spent, including funding sources and how many people will be housed and when, plus completion and move-in dates for 80 pending city projects.

"There can be no harm more grave or irreparable than the loss of life, and with each passing day, five homeless persons die in skid row and the streets of Los Angeles," the judge wrote. Carter cited declarations filed by homeless individuals who were on the streets for years, who said they desperately needed and wanted help.

Carter also wrote he won't impede any on programs the city proposed, including ballot initiatives. He agreed to stay that provision until May 27 when an evidentiary hearing will be held to determine what properties exist within the city that are available to build housing.

Skip Miller, partner at Miller Barondess LLP, who represents the county, said Monday he will be seeking a stay of Carter's order from the 9th Circuit. Rob Wilcox, spokesman for City Attorney Mike Feuer, said the city has no comment. Elizabeth Mitchell of Spertes Landes & Umhofer, who represents the plaintiffs, said Carter issued "a very thoughtful response to the city and county's complaints."

In their requests for a stay, the city and county argued that Carter found them at fault for constitutional violations under legal theories the plaintiffs never raised, which included the theories of a state-created danger doctrine and structural racism that disproportionately affected the African American community. Also, the $1 billion is not in the city's possession and comes from sources that placed specific limits on how it would be spent, the city stated. Most of Carter's order relied on news articles, op-eds and unsubstantiated information, the county argued.

"Far from being an impartial arbiter of the law, the court denied the city due process by issuing this order without giving the city notice of and a chance to rebut these theories," Senior Assistant City Attorney Scott Marcus wrote in LA's brief. "The order runs afoul of the role of federal courts, which is to be 'passive instruments of government' that do not 'look for wrongs to right' but instead 'wait for cases to come to them and when cases arise, courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties.'"

The plaintiffs never asked for money to be placed into escrow or to stop all land transfers, Marcus added. Carter came up with his own theory that the city and county's alleged conduct violated unhoused families' substantive due process rights to family integrity, which was never alleged by the plaintiffs, Marcus wrote. Carter also never explained the link between the disproportionate effects on the African American community and city policies, Marcus wrote.

"Here, there is little need to move beyond the most obvious reason that this theory fails: Absolutely nothing explains how plaintiffs have standing to sue over -- and get an injunction to remedy -- violations of hypothetical third parties' family integrity," Marcus wrote. "Even if that were not enough, the court did not cite any evidence that the city took any affirmative action that violated family integrity."

The county's attorneys contended that Carter relied on inadmissible evidence to issue his order, which would worsen the crisis. The county said it continues to deliver services to homeless people, and there is no guarantee everyone living on the streets would accept shelter.

"A judicial takeover, through an expansive and, in many respects, vague mandatory injunction is not the way to do it," Miller wrote. "This is a human problem on a massive scale. There is no one size fits all solution."