Case: Williams v. City of Albuquerque

This is a case alleging that the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, violated the constitutional rights of its unhoused population by destroying homeless encampments and/or jailing and fining people who were living on the street. On December 19, 2022, a group of unhoused private individuals filed this class action complaint in the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico, Bernalillo County. The plaintiffs sued the City of Albuquerque pursuant to the New Mexico Constitution and the New Mexico Civil Rights Act. Represented by the ACLU of New Mexico, Davis Law New Mexico, and The New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, the plaintiffs sought class certification, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. They claimed that the City violated the New Mexico Constitution in multiple ways, including citing, arresting, or threatening to cite or arrest involuntarily unhoused individuals based upon their presence on public property when no housing was available; imposing fines as a punishment; seizing and destroying the belongings of unhoused individuals without adequate prior notice; and discriminating against unhoused people.

The plaintiffs identified three putative classes in their complaint. The first class was the “Criminal Enforcement Class,” which was defined as: “All current and future involuntarily unhoused people living in the City of Albuquerque.” The second class was the “Personal Property Class,” which was defined as: “All current and future unhoused people living outdoors on public property in the City of Albuquerque who are subject to the City’s policies and practices of property collection, storage, and disposal.” The third class was the “Coronado Park Class,” which was defined as “All persons living at Coronado Park on August 17, 2022, whose property was seized by the City and not returned.”

The case was assigned to Judge Beatrice J. Brickhouse. The case was then reassigned to Judge Daniel E. Ramczyk based on a peremptory excusal on January 23, 2023. A few days later, January 27, 2023, the case was reassigned to Judge Joshua Andrew Allison based on another peremptory excusal. 

On February 27, 2023, the City filed motions to dismiss, for a protective order, and to stay discovery. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs continued to file discovery responses, and requested discovery-related sanctions against the City on March 27, 2023. 

On March 31, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction. 

In May 2023, the court denied the City’s motions to dismiss, for a protective order, and to stay discovery. It also held plaintiffs’ motions to compel discovery responses and request for sanctions in abeyance. On June 2, 2023, the defendants filed a non-opposition to plaintiffs’ itemization of attorneys’ fees and costs. The court awarded plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses on July 25, 2023. The parties continued with discovery. 

On September 1, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. 

On September 21, 2023, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It held that plaintiffs had established their alleged injuries violated the state constitution. Thus, the preliminary injunction enjoined the City from enforcing, or threatening to enforce, any laws against involuntarily unhoused people that prohibited a person’s presence or the presence of their belongings on outdoor public property. The two exceptions were that the City could enforce any laws regarding the obstruction of sidewalks or against occupying any property of a public school. In addition, the City was further enjoined from seizing or destroying any unabandoned property belonging to an unhoused person without a valid warrant (or valid exception to the warrant requirement). The injunction did not become effective until November 1, 2023, so that the City had “ample time to comply with its provisions, to determine if there are other areas of outdoor public space that should be excluded from the injunction, and for any party to file any request for modification of the injunction into this case.”

Thereafter, the City filed an emergency motion for clarification and modification of the preliminary injunction and a request for stay pending clarification. The court held hearings in December 2023 and January 2024 on those motions. 

On February 2, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion notifying the court they were undergoing mediation. 

On March 1, 2024, the court modified the preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs filed a motion to further modify the preliminary injunction on March 12, 2024. The parties were scheduled to attend a status conference on April 2, 2024 regarding these modifications. As of March 31, 2024, the case is ongoing.