SF's encampment sweep legal battle on pause, pending SCOTUS ruling
After multiple attempts in U.S. District Court in San Francisco and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu has finally been able to obtain a pause in its ongoing litigation with the Coalition on Homelessness over clearing encampments on city streets.
An order entered Friday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu puts most activity in the pending lawsuit on hold until 30 days after the U.S. Supreme Court decides a case from Oregon captioned Johnson v. Grants Pass.
The Grants Pass case is relevant to the litigation before Ryu, because a legal determination in that case is one of the grounds she relied on when she preliminarily blocked the city in an injunction from clearing encampments of "involuntarily homeless" people in December 2022.
While the city advocated for the stay and immediately issued a release expressing its appreciation for the outcome, the order does not disturb the existing injunction against the city. In other words, while waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court, the lawyers on both sides can stand down, but the injunction will continue in full force and effect.
The Supreme Court is widely expected to rule in the Grants Pass case by the end of its term on June 30, 2024. A ruling in favor of Grants Pass would likely narrow the issues in front of Ryu, though there are many other claims in the case besides those addressed in Grants Pass. Both parties expect that the litigation will continue after a decision by the Supreme Court.
Ryu authored a 15-page opinion in which she evaluated whether to issue a stay.
She balanced the factors that are generally considered when a request is made to stay pending litigation. She acknowledged the legitimacy of plaintiffs' fear they would be harmed by a suspension of proceedings, but found that was offset by two factors.
First, the stay is only expected to last for five months. Second, she did not suspend the city's duty to make ongoing disclosures to the plaintiffs that will aid them in monitoring the city's compliance with the injunction.
Those disclosures included 72-hour advance notice of any planned encampment closures, 24-hour notice of regular encampment cleanings,and ongoing periodic document disclosures, such as arrest data and incident reports, and San Francisco Department of Emergency Management dispatch records.
Chiu stated, "We appreciate that the District Court's decision spares the City from wasting public resources litigating this case when the entire legal landscape may soon change."
