Jones v. City of Los Angeles
444 F.3d 1118 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment bars a city from prosecuting homeless individuals for involuntarily sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks when there is a greater number of homeless individuals than available shelter beds within the city.
Facts:
- Edward Jones, Patricia Vinson, George Vinson, Thomas Cash, Stanley Barger, and Robert Lee Purrie were homeless individuals living in the Skid Row area of Los Angeles.
- The City of Los Angeles had significantly more homeless residents than available beds in shelters, leaving thousands of people with no alternative to being on the streets, particularly at night.
- Los Angeles Municipal Code section 41.18(d) made it a criminal offense for any person to sit, lie, or sleep on any public street or sidewalk at any time.
- Each of the plaintiffs was cited or arrested for violating section 41.18(d) for acts such as sleeping on a sidewalk, resting on a tree stump, or sleeping in a makeshift tent.
- On the nights they were cited or arrested, the plaintiffs were unable to find or access an available shelter bed for various reasons, including lack of capacity, rules separating married couples, or inability to afford a room.
- As a result of their citations and arrests, the plaintiffs faced fines, jail time, and the loss of their personal property, which was often discarded by police.
Procedural Posture:
- Six homeless individuals filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the City of Los Angeles and L.A.P.D. officials.
- The complaint sought a permanent injunction to prevent the enforcement of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 41.18(d) against homeless individuals in the Skid Row area at night.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the district court.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles, holding that the ordinance punished conduct, not status, and thus did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
- The plaintiffs (Appellants) timely appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the enforcement of a city ordinance criminalizing sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks at all times violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment when applied to homeless individuals who have no access to shelter?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Wardlaw
Yes, the enforcement of the ordinance against homeless individuals with no access to shelter violates the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the state from punishing an involuntary act or condition that is the unavoidable consequence of a person's status. The court's reasoning is based on its interpretation of Robinson v. California and Powell v. Texas. While Robinson established that a person cannot be punished for their 'status' (e.g., being a drug addict), a majority of justices in the fractured Powell decision supported the principle that the state also cannot punish involuntary conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of that status. Here, sitting, lying, and sleeping are universal and biologically compelled human needs. For homeless individuals in Los Angeles, where shelter beds are proven to be insufficient, performing these acts in public is an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless. Therefore, criminalizing this conduct is functionally equivalent to criminalizing the status of being homeless, which is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
Dissenting - Judge Rymer
No, the enforcement of the ordinance does not violate the Eighth Amendment because it punishes conduct, not status. The law targets the act of sitting, lying, or sleeping on a sidewalk, which can be committed by anyone, housed or unhoused. The dissent argues that the majority misreads Supreme Court precedent, which has narrowly applied Robinson to criminal laws that have no actus reus requirement. The ordinance here clearly punishes an act. Furthermore, the dissent contends that Eighth Amendment protections only attach after a criminal conviction, not at the point of citation or arrest, meaning most plaintiffs lacked standing. For those convicted, a necessity defense was available under California law, meaning their punishment was not for an unavoidable condition. The majority's holding improperly expands the Eighth Amendment into the state's legitimate power to regulate public spaces and creates a constitutional right based on the city's failure to provide a social service.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's protection against status-based crimes, establishing that it also covers involuntary conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of one's status. It set a major precedent for homeless rights litigation, limiting the ability of municipalities in the Ninth Circuit to enforce broad anti-camping or anti-loitering ordinances without first ensuring sufficient shelter is available. The ruling created a circuit split with the Fifth Circuit's decision in Johnson v. City of Dallas, particularly on the issue of whether a conviction is necessary for standing in such cases. This has influenced how cities approach homelessness, shifting the legal focus from mere law enforcement to the adequacy of social services.
Unlock the full brief for Jones v. City of Los Angeles