Case: Bradley v. City of San Diego

3:25-cv-02186 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Filed Date: Aug. 25, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case challenging the absence of humane conditions and reasonable accommodations for unhoused residents of municipally administered camps.  On August 25, 2025, eight unhoused people with disabilities filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Represented by Community Advocates for Just and Moral Governance, in addition to private counsel, the plaintiffs sued the City of San Diego and two non-profit organizations—Dreams for Change and Downtown…

This is a case challenging the absence of humane conditions and reasonable accommodations for unhoused residents of municipally administered camps. 


On August 25, 2025, eight unhoused people with disabilities filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Represented by Community Advocates for Just and Moral Governance, in addition to private counsel, the plaintiffs sued the City of San Diego and two non-profit organizations—Dreams for Change and Downtown Partnership—under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Fair Housing Act, Title II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and various California state laws. The complaint also listed causes of action based on nuisance and negligence. The unhoused individuals alleged they were coerced to reside in the city’s Safe Sleeping Program to avoid harassment from law enforcement, even though the camps were rodent-infested, moldy, lacking in adequate food, shade, and shelter, and in defiance of fire safety standards. They sought injunctive, declarative, and monetary relief, including compensatory and damages, as well as attorney’s fees.


The case was assigned to Judge Andrew G. Schopler. As of September 17, 2025, the case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Claire Pollard (8/31/2025)

Om Shah (9/17/2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71196358/parties/bradley-v-city-of-san-diego/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Burchett, Brian Lee (California)

Dreher, Robert Scott (California)

Grumet, Elizabeth Y. (California)

Jones-Wright, Genevieve L. (California)

Menasche, Ann E (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case
1

3:25-cv-02186

Complaint for Injunctive, Declaratory, and Monetary Relief

Bradley et al. v. City of San Diego et al.

Aug. 25, 2025

Aug. 25, 2025

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71196358/bradley-v-city-of-san-diego/

Last updated Sept. 16, 2026, 5:45 a.m.

Docket for: Bradley v. City of San Diego
ECF Number Date Description Link
1 Aug. 25, 2025

COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ACASDC-20221458.), filed by Liam Burton, Karen Abood, Jeffrey Bradley, John Borja, Timothy Allen, Tosha Alvarado, Laura Zaleta, Paul Scallan. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:25-cv-2186-AGS-MMP. Judge Andrew G. Schopler and Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit are assigned to the case. (Menasche, Ann)(axc1) (sjt). (Entered: 08/25/2025)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Clearinghouse
2 Aug. 25, 2025

Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (axc1) (sjt). (Entered: 08/25/2025)

RECAP
4 Sept. 26, 2025

MINUTE ORDER (AGS): The joint motion for an extension (ECF 3 ) is granted. The deadline to respond to the complaint is November 18, 2025. Signed by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 9/26/2025. (no document attached) (smf) (Entered: 09/26/2025)

RECAP
9 Nov. 13, 2025

ORDER (AGS): The joint motion to extend is granted. Defendants' response is due December 4, 2025. Signed by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 11/13/2025. (no document attached) (jxg3) (Entered: 11/13/2025)

RECAP
11 Dec. 2, 2025

ORDER (AGS): The joint motion (ECF 10 ) to extend time to file the defenses responsive pleading is granted. Plaintiffs must file any first amended complaint by January 12, 2026. Any response to the operative complaint is due either: (1) 30 days after the first amended complaint is filed; or (2) if no amended complaint is timely filed, by January 19, 2026. Signed by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 12/2/2025. (no document attached) (jxg3) (Entered: 12/02/2025)

RECAP
13 Jan. 29, 2026

Plaintiffs have lodged a request for a discovery conference re leave to conduct Rule 34 inspections of the two homeless camps prior to the Rule 26 conference pursuant to Judge Pettit's Chambers Rule X.B. (no document attached) (kfg) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

RECAP
14 Jan. 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER: For good cause, the Court grants leave for Plaintiffs to file a motion for early discovery in lieu of a pre-motion conference. The Court SETS the following briefing schedule: Plaintiffs shall file their motion no later than February 3, 2026. Defendants shall respond no later than February 17, 2026, and Plaintiffs shall reply no later than February 24, 2026. Unless otherwise ordered, the Court will take the matter under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and the undersigned's Civil Chambers Rule X(F). IT IS SO ORDERED by the Honorable Michelle M. Pettit on January 29, 2026. (no document attached) (kfg) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

RECAP
25 April 15, 2026

ORDER (AGS): The page-allowance request (ECF 24 ) is granted in part. Plaintiffs may file an opposition up to 35 pages; defendants may file a reply up to 15 pages.Signed by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 4/15/2026. (no document attached) (jxg3) (Entered: 04/15/2026)

RECAP
31 May 4, 2026

ORDER (AGS): The motion for a remote appearance (ECF 30 ) is granted. Counsel must contact efile_schopler@casd.uscourts.gov to facilitate that appearance. Signed by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 05/04/2026. (no document attached) (jxg3) (Entered: 05/04/2026)

RECAP
36 May 7, 2026

MINUTE ENTRY & ORDER: On May 7, 2026, the Court held a hearing. Written order attached. (Court Reporter/ECR James Pence). (Plaintiff Attorney Brian L. Burchett, Elizabeth Y. Grumet, Ann E. Menasche).(Defendant Attorney Christina M. Cameron, Heather E. Stern, Elizabeth Biggerstaff). (lrc)

RECAP
38 May 29, 2026

ORDER Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Site Inspection re (ECF No. 15 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit on 05/29/2026. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mef)

RECAP
46 June 22, 2026

ORDER (AGS): The joint extension request (ECF 45 ) is granted. Defendants' response to the second amended complaint is due July 13, 2026. Signed by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 6/22/2026. (no document attached) (jxg3) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

RECAP
48 July 10, 2026

MINUTE ORDER: The parties have submitted a request for a discovery conference regarding early inspection of the O lot. ECF No. 38 . The Court SETS an attorneys-only Discovery Conference for July 16, 2026 at 2:30 PM via videoconference before Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit. The parties shall appear via Zoom, which is accessible as follows: Meeting ID 165 844 8864, Passcode 670636. IT IS SO ORDERED by the Honorable Michelle M. Pettit on July 10, 2026.(kxr) (Entered: 07/10/2026)

RECAP
49 July 10, 2026

ORDER (AGS): The joint request to extend time (ECF 47 ) is granted. Defendant Downtown San Diego Partnership's answer or response to the second amended complaint is due July 27, 2026. Signed by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 07/10/2026. (no document attached) (jxg3) (Entered: 07/10/2026)

RECAP
50 July 10, 2026

ORDER (AGS): To clarify, the joint request to extend time (ECF 47 ) is granted in full. All defendants' answers or responses to the second amended complaint are due July 27, 2026. Signed by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 07/10/2026. (no document attached) (jxg3) (Entered: 07/10/2026)

RECAP
51 July 16, 2026

Minute Entry for Proceedings Held before Michelle M. Pettit: Discovery Conference held on July 16, 2026, regarding early inspection of the O lot. ECF Nos. 38, 48 . Plaintiff Attorneys Ann E. Menasche and Brian Lee Burchett. Defendant City of San Diego Attorneys Michelle T. Neff and Elizabeth Louise Atkins Biggerstaff. Defendant Dreams for Change Attorney Heather Elizabeth Stern. Defendant Downtown Partnership Attorney Lesley A. Ionescu. During the informal Discovery Conference, the Court provided guidance on the issues in dispute related to the early inspection of the O lot. If the disputes are not sufficiently resolved between the parties, the Court provides leave for the parties to file formal discovery motions. The Court directs the parties to further meet and confer regarding a Protective Order. IT IS SO ORDERED by the Honorable Michelle M. Pettit on July 20, 2026.(no document attached) (kxr) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

RECAP
July 20, 2026

Discovery Conference

55 July 28, 2026

Joint MOTION for Protective Order re Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Early Site Inspection by Dreams for Change. (Stern, Heather) (mef). (Entered: 07/28/2026)

RECAP
56 July 29, 2026

ORDER (AGS): The reconsideration hearing is reset to October 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The reconsideration motion (ECF 39 ) will be heard at the same time as the motions to dismiss and strike (ECF 52 ).Signed by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 07/29/2026. (no document attached) (jxg3) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

RECAP
July 29, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings AND ~Util - Terminate Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

57 July 31, 2026

ORDER Granting Joint Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Early Site Inspection re (ECF No. 55 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit on 07/31/2026. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mef) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory:

California

Case Type(s):

Disability Rights

Public Accommodations/ Contracting/ Organizational Discrimination

Public Housing

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 25, 2025

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Eight unhoused people with disabilities forced to sleep in camps established and operated by San Diego.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

City

City of San Diego

Non-profit or advocacy

Downtown Partnership

Dreams For Change

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.

Fair Housing Act/Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Other Dockets:

Southern District of California 3:25-cv-02186

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Granted:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General/Misc.:

Access to public accommodations - governmental

Assault/abuse by staff

Emergency shelter

Fire safety

Government services

Housing

Housing assistance

Loss or damage to property

Neglect by staff

Placement in shelters

Poverty/homelessness

Sanitation / living conditions

Benefits (Source):

SSI

Disability and Disability Rights:

Depression

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Reasonable Accommodations

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Policing:

Over/Unlawful Detention (policing)

Recommended Citation