A Judge is allowing the Sacramento County DA to sue the city of Sacramento. Why? Because the city is spending lots of money, but homelessness continues to grow.
“— A lawsuit filed against the city of Sacramento by the county district attorney over the city’s failure to address its homeless situation can proceed though some of its avenues have been barred for now, a judge ruled Thursday.
Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho sued the Golden State’s capital city this past September, claiming it had failed to enforce its own laws. He pointed to syringes on soccer fields and kids walking through human waste as they went to school.
The city in response argued that Ho, representing the people of California, didn’t properly state sufficient facts to bolster his claims, that those claims were barred by the Government Claims Act and the separation of powers doctrine.
Like most Democrat owned cities, the government talks about the homeless issue, but continues to payoff friends, unions, donors and non profits, instead of solving the problem.
Judge advances swath of DA’s homelessness suit against Sacramento
The Sacramento DA, however, failed to point to any city law Sacramento isn’t following, and the judge said she lacks authority to force the city to pass new laws.
ALAN RIQUELMY, Courthousenews, 5/2/24 https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-advances-swath-of-das-homelessness-suit-against-sacramento/
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A lawsuit filed against the city of Sacramento by the county district attorney over the city’s failure to address its homeless situation can proceed though some of its avenues have been barred for now, a judge ruled Thursday.
Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho sued the Golden State’s capital city this past September, claiming it had failed to enforce its own laws. He pointed to syringes on soccer fields and kids walking through human waste as they went to school.
The city in response argued that Ho, representing the people of California, didn’t properly state sufficient facts to bolster his claims, that those claims were barred by the Government Claims Act and the separation of powers doctrine.
On Thursday, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Jill H. Talley agreed with some of the city’s arguments in a tentative ruling. However, she ruled that an immunity argument isn’t applicable, and that the city is potentially liable under the state’s Fish and Game Code.
That sets the stage for argument before the judge Friday morning.
“The District Attorney’s Office believes that the first amended complaint was valid and in full compliance with the law,” Ho’s office said in a Thursday statement. “After the court hearing tomorrow, we will have further comment.”
Talley advanced the claim that hinges on the Fish and Game Code, which forbids someone from tossing trash into the waters of the state. In December, Ho took media on a tour by Steelhead Creek to see the effect of homeless encampments.
The city argued that the Fish and Game Code doesn’t include a public entity like a municipality in its definition of a person. The judge disagreed, ruling the law doesn’t limit that definition to people only. Also, the city failed to show it’s not liable under the law.
Talley also sided with Ho regarding the city’s claims of immunity. She ruled that because Ho wants injunctive and equitable relief, not money, the city can face those accusations in court.
“It’s a tentative ruling,” Mayor Darrell Steinberg said in a statement. “We will have a comment when there’s a final ruling.”
The city did prevail in two of three of its arguments that Ho had failed to state a claim, and on its separation of powers argument.
According to Talley, the city said Ho didn’t provide enough facts to show it’s not enforcing a law. Ho’s argument is that Sacramento’s failure to act — for example, by not clearing sidewalks of obstructions like encampments — has created a public nuisance.
The judge ruled that Ho’s suit doesn’t point to a mandatory duty to act that the city must obey, like an ordinance requiring the city to perform a certain function.
A nuisance claim against the city fails for the same reason, as Ho’s suit doesn’t point to a law Sacramento is failing to enforce.
Turning to the separation of powers argument, Talley said Ho wants her to force the city to make new ordinances or enforce its existing ones. That doesn’t work because of the separation of powers doctrine.
“There are no allegations to support a finding that the people are seeking an injunction that requires the city to do anything other than legislate or enforce its ordinances — two remedies this court cannot provide,” Talley wrote.
Ho has a month to amend his complaint.
Sacramento is no stranger to litigation over its unhoused population.
The Sacramento Homeless Union sued the city and county over endangering people by moving them from shaded areas during a 2021 heat wave. The union secured an injunction the following two years, which prohibited the city from relocating unhoused people during the hottest weeks of the year.
One of the injunctions was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, though the underlying suit remains pending.
Homelessness continues to grow because Sacramento continues to give handout instead of a helping hand. Read “Personal Opinions of One Common Man” due out soon.