Case: Blake v. City of Grants Pass

1:18-cv-01823 | U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Filed Date: Oct. 15, 2018

Closed Date: Oct. 7, 2024

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On October 15, 2018, individuals without secure housing filed this class-action lawsuit suing the city of Grants Pass, Oregon (the “City”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by the Oregon Law Center, the plaintiffs challenged the City’s enforcement of Grants Pass’s anti-sleeping ordinance, anti-camping ordinance, park exclusion ordinance, and criminal trespass laws stemming from violations of these ordinances as unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S Constitution. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief prohibiting the City from enforcing the ordinances and criminal trespass laws until the class members had the opportunity to obtain shelter. The plaintiffs also sought declaratory relief as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs’ counsel had contacted the City on September 10, 2018, to demand relief, but the parties were unable to resolve the dispute outside of court.

The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. Both parties consented to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge for the entirety of the case. On January 2, 2019, the City amended its ordinance, removing “sleeping” from the definition of camping in an attempt to comply with a previous case, Martin v. Boise, which held that an ordinance punishing people for sleeping outside was unconstitutional when there was nowhere else for them to go. In amending its ordinance, the City meant to clarify that the act of “sleeping” no longer automatically constituted illegal “camping,” permitting those without shelter to sleep or rest in the City’s parks.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 28, 2019, to add information about two additional plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 8, 2019, adding an additional individual to the plaintiff’s attorneys.

On March 13, 2019, the plaintiffs moved to certify the class. After a hearing, Magistrate Judge Clarke granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on August 7, 2019. 2019 WL 3717800. The court defined the class as: "All involuntarily homeless individuals living in Grants Pass, Oregon, including homeless individuals who sometimes sleep outside city limits to avoid harassment and punishment by Defendant as addressed in this lawsuit."

The plaintiffs then filed their third amended complaint on November 13, 2019 to add an additional challenge to park exclusions under the Due Process Clause. On January 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and requested an oral argument. The defendant responded with a joint motion for summary judgment on February 28, 2020.

On July 22, 2020, Magistrate Judge Clarke denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and he granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Clarke granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the procedural due process claim because the park exclusions would go into effect immediately and were not stayed for appeal, leaving a person excluded from a park subject to arrest for reentry as soon as they received the exclusion notice. The court concluded that the deficient appeal procedures were unconstitutional and violated the procedural protections of due process. However, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their equal protection claim because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the ordinances were selectively enforced and motivated by a discriminatory purpose. Likewise, summary judgment was denied on the plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim because they failed to convince the court that they had a liberty interest to sleep or camp in a public place and had not shown that the city engaged in “conscience shocking behavior.” 2020 WL 4209227.

The court also found that the ordinances violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment because they punished people for sleeping or resting outside with a blanket when they had no other place to go due to the City’s lack of adequate shelter. The ordinances also violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment because the plaintiffs were being punished for trying to live, and likely could not afford to pay the fines, resulting in additional fees and punishments that made it even more difficult for them to find housing. 2020 WL 4209227.

On August 26, 2020, Judge Clarke issued an injunction enjoining the enforcement of three city ordinances against the plaintiff class. The City could not enforce the park exclusion ordinance, which allowed police officers to issue an order barring a person from all City park properties if the individual had been issued two or more citations violating regulations relating to city parks, or one citation violating state laws while on city park property. Unless it gave at least a 24-hour warning, the City also could not enforce the camping ordinances, which prohibited setting up or remaining on public property. Finally, the City could not enforce the criminal trespassing ordinance in city parks during nighttime hours.

That same day, the city of Grants Pass appealed the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment and its permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (No. 20-35752). The Ninth Circuit’s decision on September 28, 2022, affirmed that the city’s “anti-camping” ordinance prohibiting individuals from using bedding supplies violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. The case was remanded with direction to the district court to narrow its injunction to only enjoin enforcement of ordinances against unhoused individuals who take necessary measures to keep themselves warm and safe when there is no shelter available. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment on the procedural due process claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss the claim as moot because the City amended the ordinance so it was no longer unconstitutional. 50 F.4th 787.

In the meantime, the plaintiffs filed a motion for costs and attorneys’ fees on September 9, 2020. The parties thereafter, by October 5, 2020, reached an agreement for the plaintiffs to receive $300,000 with interest for their costs and attorneys’ fees. 2020 WL 6060925. Three days later, on October 8, the City appealed to the Ninth Circuit (No. 20-35881).

The City filed a petition for en banc review with the Ninth Circuit on November 14, 2022.

On July 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit amended the opinion it issued on September 28, 2022. It amended the order to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, reasoning that Grants Pass provided exceptionally limited protection and was consistent with Supreme Court precedent. The court further stated that future petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc would not be entertained in this case.

In response to the Ninth Circuit’s denial for a rehearing en banc, the City filed a petition for writ of certiorari on August 22, 2023, requesting the Supreme Court to rule on whether laws regulating camping on public property constituted cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. 2023 WL 5530379.

On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision, ruling 6-3 to reverse and remand. 2024 WL 3208072. The majority’s decision, written by Justice Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, reasoned that the Eighth Amendment focuses on the “method or kind of punishment” that may be imposed after conviction, and not on whether the government may criminalize particular behavior, and therefore could not support the relief sought. The Court further held that the punishments imposed by Grants Pass under the challenged statute were not cruel and unusual. The majority opinion further rejected the argument that laws against camping criminalized the “status” of homelessness, reasoning that the challenged law applied to anyone who undertook the act of camping, rejecting plaintiffs’ argument “camping, for people without other housing options, was “involuntary” and thus could not be criminalized. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

In a concurrence, Justice Thomas noted his opinion that the 1962 case rendering “status crimes” unconstitutional was wrongly decided, and rejected the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments clause governed civil penalties because they could later become criminal offenses. The dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, urged that the Eighth Amendment prohibits criminalizing the status of homelessness by making it a crime to sleep outside when a person has no other place to sleep. The dissent further noted that the Court had not decided whether the ordinance violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, Due Process, or state law.

On September 23, 2024, this matter was remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of approving a settlement agreement between the two parties. The parties informed the court that the matter was settled, and the case was dismissed without prejudice.

	Document
1 1:18-cv-01823	Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief	Oct. 15, 2018	Oct. 15, 2018 Complaint
47 1:18-cv-01823	Opinion and Order	Aug. 7, 2019	Aug. 7, 2019 Order/Opinion 2019 WL 3717800
50 1:18-cv-01823	Third Amended Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief	Nov. 13, 2019	Nov. 13, 2019 Complaint
111 1:18-cv-01823	Opinion and Order	July 22, 2020	July 22, 2020 Order/Opinion 2020 WL 4209227
114 1:18-cv-01823	Judgment	Aug. 26, 2020	Aug. 26, 2020 Order/Opinion
1:18-cv-01823	Order Granting Fees and Costs to Plaintiffs'	Oct. 5, 2020	Oct. 5, 2020 Order/Opinion 2020 WL 6060925
138 20-35752 20-35881	Opinion Johnson v. City of Grants Pass U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Sept. 28, 2022	Sept. 28, 2022 Order/Opinion 50 F.4th 787
95 20-35881	Order and Amended Opinion Johnson v. City of Grants Pass U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	July 5, 2023	July 5, 2023 Order/Opinion 116 Fed.R.Serv.3d 373
100 20-35752	Order and Amended Opinion Johnson v. City of Grants Pass U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	July 6, 2023	July 6, 2023 Order/Opinion 72 F.4th 868
23-00175	SCOTUS Opinion City of Grants Pass v. Johnson Supreme Court of the United States	June 28, 2024	June 28, 2024 Order/Opinion 144 S.Ct. 2202

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	Complaint. Filing fee in the amount of $400 collected. Agency Tracking ID: 0979-5594026 Jury Trial Requested: No. Filed by Debra Blake against City of Grants Pass (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Proposed Summons). (Johnson, Edward) (Entered: 10/15/2018) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER 2 Proposed Summons View on PACER	Oct. 15, 2018	Oct. 15, 2018 Clearinghouse
2	Notice of Case Assignment to Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke and Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. Discovery is to be completed by 2/12/2019. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 3/14/2019. Pretrial Order is due by 3/14/2019. Dispositive motions are due 3/14/2019. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (jkm) (Entered: 10/15/2018)	Oct. 15, 2018	Oct. 15, 2018
3	Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke regarding Discovery order,, 2 . Dispositive Motions are due by 3/14/2019. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (jkm) (Entered: 10/15/2018)	Oct. 15, 2018	Oct. 15, 2018
4	Summons Issued Electronically as to City of Grants Pass. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. (jkm) (Entered: 10/15/2018)	Oct. 15, 2018	Oct. 15, 2018
5	Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File an Appearance. Filed by City of Grants Pass. (Warren, Gerald) (Entered: 10/29/2018)	Oct. 29, 2018	Oct. 29, 2018 RECAP
6	Declaration of Gerald L. Warren . Filed by City of Grants Pass. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time 5 .) (Warren, Gerald) (Entered: 10/29/2018)	Oct. 29, 2018	Oct. 29, 2018
7	ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time 5 to file Answer. Answer is now due by 12/12/2018. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm) (Entered: 10/31/2018)	Oct. 31, 2018	Oct. 31, 2018
8	Answer to 1 Complaint, . Filed by City of Grants Pass. (Warren, Gerald) (Entered: 11/29/2018)	Nov. 29, 2018	Nov. 29, 2018 RECAP
10	Individual Party Consent to Jurisdiction by U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Entered: 12/05/2018)	Dec. 5, 2018	Dec. 5, 2018
11	Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Agreement . Filed by Debra Blake. (Johnson, Edward) (Entered: 12/05/2018)	Dec. 5, 2018	Dec. 5, 2018
12	Individual Party Consent to Jurisdiction by U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Entered: 12/05/2018)	Dec. 5, 2018	Dec. 5, 2018
9	RECORD OF ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke: SETTING a telephonic Rule 16 Conference for January 14, 2019 at 9:00 AM. Conference call information will be provided in a separate entry. At the time of the Conference, parties should have their calendars available to discuss scheduling matters, including modification of the current case deadlines, joining additional parties and amending the pleadings, dispositive motions, and setting a trial date. The parties shall consult pursuant to FRCP 26(f) regarding a focused and proportional discovery plan prior to the Conference. Under LR 26.1(b) a written report is not required. However, the parties should be prepared to briefly summarize the issues in the case and give the Court a realistic picture of what discovery needs to be completed. The ultimate goal of the discovery plan shall be "the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of the action. FRCP 1. If depositions are anticipated, the parties should confer prior to the Conference and have a firm date for the depositions scheduled prior to the conference. Parties shall confer prior to the Conference and consider whether the case could benefit from a streamlined approach, utilizing limited discovery and early dispositive motions, settlement conference, or an expedited trial date. Finally, if the parties intend to file written consents to a magistrate judge, it would be helpful to do so prior to the Rule 16 Conference, particularly if they want to secure a firm trial date. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm) (Entered: 12/05/2018)	Dec. 5, 2018	Dec. 5, 2018
13	RECORD OF ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke: RESETTING the telephonic Rule 16 Conference from January 14, 2019 at 9:00 AM to January 22, 2019 at 9:00 AM. Conference call information previously provided still applies. At the time of the Conference, parties should have their calendars available to discuss scheduling matters, including modification of the current case deadlines, joining additional parties and amending the pleadings, dispositive motions, and setting a trial date. The parties shall consult pursuant to FRCP 26(f) regarding a focused and proportional discovery plan prior to the Conference. Under LR 26.1(b) a written report is not required. However, the parties should be prepared to briefly summarize the issues in the case and give the Court a realistic picture of what discovery needs to be completed. The ultimate goal of the discovery plan shall be "the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of the action. FRCP 1. If depositions are anticipated, the parties should confer prior to the Conference and have a firm date for the depositions scheduled prior to the conference. Parties shall confer prior to the Conference and consider whether the case could benefit from a streamlined approach, utilizing limited discovery and early dispositive motions, settlement conference, or an expedited trial date. Finally, if the parties intend to file written consents to a magistrate judge, it would be helpful to do so prior to the Rule 16 Conference, particularly if they want to secure a firm trial date. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm) (Entered: 12/06/2018)	Dec. 6, 2018	Dec. 6, 2018
14	Full Consent by all Parties to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge. (jkm) (Entered: 12/07/2018)	Dec. 7, 2018	Dec. 7, 2018
15	MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephonic Rule 16 Conference held. Amended Complaint is due 2/22/2019. A further telephonic Status Conference is set for 3/4/2019 at 09:00AM in Medford before Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. Conference call information will be provided in a separate entry. All current deadlines are vacated and will be reset at a later date. Edward Johnson present as counsel for plaintiff. Gerald Warren present as counsel for defendant. Court Reporter: Hearing was not recorded. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm) (Entered: 01/22/2019)	Jan. 22, 2019	Jan. 22, 2019
16	Stipulated Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Fonseca, Walter) (Entered: 02/22/2019)	Feb. 22, 2019	Feb. 22, 2019
17	ORDER: Granting Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition 16 . Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm) (Entered: 02/27/2019)	Feb. 27, 2019	Feb. 27, 2019
18	Notice of Association of Attorney Edward Johnson,Jenny Logan for Debra Blake. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Johnson, Edward) (Entered: 02/28/2019)	Feb. 28, 2019	Feb. 28, 2019
19	First Amended Complaint . Filed by Debra Blake against All Plaintiffs. (Fonseca, Walter) (Entered: 02/28/2019)	Feb. 28, 2019	Feb. 28, 2019 RECAP
20	MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephonic Status/Scheduling Conference held. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action is due by 03/22/2019. Defendant's Response is due by 5/17/2019. Plaintiff's Reply is due by 6/14/2019. No further dates set at this time. Edward Johnson present as counsel for plaintiff. Gerald Warren present as counsel for defendant. Court Reporter: Hearing was not recorded. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm) (Entered: 03/04/2019)	March 4, 2019	March 4, 2019
	Scheduling Conference	March 4, 2019	March 4, 2019
21	Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Fonseca, Walter) (Entered: 03/07/2019)	March 7, 2019	March 7, 2019
22	ORDER: Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 21 . Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm) (Entered: 03/08/2019)	March 8, 2019	March 8, 2019
23	Second Amended Complaint . Filed by John Logan, Debra Blake, Gloria Johnson against All Defendants. (Fonseca, Walter) (Entered: 03/08/2019)	March 8, 2019	March 8, 2019 RECAP
	Order on Motion For Leave to File AmendedComplaint/Petition	March 8, 2019	March 8, 2019
24	Answer to 23 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand (to Second) Amended Complaint. Filed by City of Grants Pass. (Warren, Gerald) (Entered: 03/11/2019)	March 11, 2019	March 11, 2019
25	Motion to Certify the Class . Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Johnson, Edward) (Entered: 03/13/2019)	March 13, 2019	March 13, 2019
26	Declaration of Debra Blake in support of motion to certify class. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion to certify class 25 .) (Johnson, Edward) (Entered: 03/13/2019)	March 13, 2019	March 13, 2019
27	Declaration of Gloria Johnson in support of motion to certify class. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion to certify class 25 .) (Johnson, Edward) (Entered: 03/13/2019)	March 13, 2019	March 13, 2019
28	Declaration of John Logan in support of motion to certify class. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion to certify class 25 .) (Johnson, Edward) (Entered: 03/13/2019)	March 13, 2019	March 13, 2019
29	Declaration of Kelly Wessels in support of motion to certify class. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion to certify class 25 .) (Johnson, Edward) (Entered: 03/13/2019)	March 13, 2019	March 13, 2019
30	Declaration of Teresa Santucci in support of motion to certify class. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion to certify class 25 .) (Johnson, Edward) (Entered: 03/13/2019)	March 13, 2019	March 13, 2019
31	Declaration of Ed Johnson in support of motion to certify class. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion to certify class 25 .) (Johnson, Edward) (Entered: 03/13/2019)	March 13, 2019	March 13, 2019
32	Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke regarding Motion to Certify the Class 25 . Response is due by 5/17/2019. Reply is due by 6/14/2019. Motion is taken under advisement as of 6/24/2019. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm) (Entered: 03/14/2019)	March 14, 2019	March 14, 2019
	1 - Scheduling	March 14, 2019	March 14, 2019
33	Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke regarding Motion to Certify the Class 25 . Telephonic Oral Argument is set for 7/9/2019 at 02:00PM in Medford Courtroom 2 before Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. Teleconference information will be provided in a separate entry. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm) (Entered: 03/27/2019)	March 27, 2019	March 27, 2019
	1 - Scheduling	March 27, 2019	March 27, 2019
34	Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion to Certify the Class 25 . Filed by City of Grants Pass. (Warren, Gerald) (Entered: 05/15/2019)	May 15, 2019	May 15, 2019
35	Declaration of Gerald L. Warren . Filed by City of Grants Pass. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion 34 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Warren, Gerald) (Entered: 05/15/2019)	May 15, 2019	May 15, 2019
36	ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion to Certify the Class 25 filed by John Logan, Gloria Johnson, Debra Blake. Response is due by 5/23/2019. Reply is due by 6/21/2019. Motion is taken under advisement as of 7/9/2019. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm) (Entered: 05/16/2019)	May 16, 2019	May 16, 2019

Case: Blake v. City of Grants Pass

1:18-cv-01823 | U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details