-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/39333/archive/files/616f2a835ba2ab1dde87bfdcca8eed5e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=C9EwMnWoYS5epn33KaJcX6RtFJIeik5nlYWAeRMVmAhDF47Fh9D7gariX50XQOiLVQw-H8egOF88uGLGXZZellqTrMMRpAlctTWPkandKfVSUaggue-Y9NiAmPwxZXRhAuJPniY5G%7EBTHIAvzEQhZxyxEVSIXpXcfe1ZI9xRgQeQDraW1%7EtcXi1lojNokuKs-JUs68BqfkDjoO6CeEBvYrG%7E2hsUyTehn1dQXrnXZZWjiXBYndFWVyFzK57pADx%7EO%7EDClACFD8xQiWoDNy8qxXBonHA9N-jHAr%7EPA27jEI6Aph9SABXuqcyYTs9BDSJGGm4Rq11FJrMjNcuSG9azIA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
603ba3ccc6bfefdbc7e546f03c5b205f
PDF Text
Text
Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 40 Page ID #:1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BROOKE WEITZMAN SBN 301037
WILLIAM WISE SBN 109468
ELDER LAW AND DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER
1535 E 17th Street
Santa Ana, California 92705
t. 714-617–5353
e. bweitzman@eldrcenter.org
e. bwise@eldrcenter.org
CAROL A. SOBEL SBN 84483
MONIQUE ALARCON SBN 311650
AVNEET CHATTHA SBN 316545
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401
t. 310-393-3055
e. carolsobellaw@gmail.com
e. monique.alarcon8@gmail.com
e. avneet.chattha7@gmail.com
[Additional Counsel on Next Page]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SOUTHERN DIVISION
ORANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC
WORKER, an unincorporated
association; Lisa Bell, Shawn Carroll,
Melissa Fields, Larry Ford, Cameron
Ralston, Kathy Schuler, Gloria
Shoemake, as individuals;
Plaintiffs,
Case No.:
Civil Rights Complaint
42 U.S.C. § 1983:First, Fourth, Fifth,
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
Cal. Const. Article I, Sections 7 and 13;
Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1.
v.
ORANGE COUNTY, the City of
Anaheim, the City of Costa Mesa, and
the City of Orange,
Defendants.
1
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 2 of 40 Page ID #:2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PAUL L. HOFFMAN SBN 71244
CATHERINE SWEETSER SBN 271142
COLLEEN M. MULLEN SBN 299059
SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS & HOFFMAN
11543 W. Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90064
t. 310-396-0731
e. hoffpaul@aol.com
e. csweetser@sshhlaw.com
e. cmullen@sshhlaw.com
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 3 of 40 Page ID #:3
1
2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages
3
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon the violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under
4
the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
5
Constitution. Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343 based on
6
42 U.S.C. §1983 and questions of federal constitutional law. Jurisdiction also
7
exists under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202. The
8
Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims for declaratory
9
and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
10
11
2.
Venue is proper in the Southern Division of the Central District in that
the events and conduct complained of herein all occurred in Orange County.
12
13
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
3.
Over the past year, Orange County, Anaheim, Orange, and Costa
14
Mesa, have taken actions to force unhoused people into the area of the Santa Ana
15
Riverbed between the Santa Ana Freeway and Ball Road. Now, the County is
16
taking steps to push those people back into the surrounding cities without a plan
17
for housing or shelter. The failure, if not the outright refusal, of Orange County
18
and its cities to adopt positive measures to address the housing crisis and the
19
willingness to criminalize the mere act of existing in public spaces takes a toll on
20
the County’s most vulnerable people. At every opportunity the County and its
21
cities have invested in enforcement instead of housing, blaming other entities for
22
the problem, and leaving unhoused people nowhere to turn, nowhere to live, and
23
nowhere to sleep.
24
25
4.
The consequences of the county and municipal governments’
abdication of responsibility are significant. Deaths of homeless people in Orange
26
27
28
3
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 4 of 40 Page ID #:4
1
County reached an all-time annual high of 210 in 2017.1 These deaths come after
2
a decade of indifference by government officials. In 2008, Orange County
3
recognized the desperate need to address these issues and formed the Orange
4
County Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness Working Group “to serve and protect
5
the homeless . . .”2 With no serious effort to implement an actual plan, the
6
homeless population in the County continued to grow. In the 2017 Point-in-Time
7
Count, the County estimated that there were 4,792 homeless people, 2,584 of
8
whom were unsheltered and could find no shelter space. This number included
9
357 veterans.2 More than half of the 2017 sheltered population was in emergency
10
shelters with the remainder in “transitional shelter.” By the county’s own
11
estimates, the homeless population has increased between 5 and 7 percent annually
12
over the last five years. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the current
13
homeless population exceeds 5,000 individuals.
14
5.
In 2017, with an increasing homeless population and no investment in
15
solutions, the County renamed the Commission to End Homelessness and ended all
16
reference to ending homelessness by 2020. As a part of that change, critical
17
stakeholders, including homeless people and service providers, were removed from
18
the Commission.
19
6.
This re-focus away from ending homelessness came at a time when
20
affordable housing in Orange County was increasingly rapidly disappearing.
21
According to the homeless assessment completed in October 2016 by Susan Price,
22
23
24
25
26
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/12/19/210-homeless-people-who-died-inorange-county-the-past-year-will-be-remembered-at-an-interfaith-service-here-aretheir-names/
1
27
28
http://ochmis.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/PIT-Final-Report-201707.24.17.pdf
2
4
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 5 of 40 Page ID #:5
1
the Orange County Care Coordinator, 64% of jobs available in Orange County in
2
2016 did not pay enough for a person to afford a one-bedroom apartment, rents
3
increased dramatically in 2016, and the Orange County affordable housing stock
4
declined in the face of gentrification in formerly low-income neighborhoods across
5
Orange County. The report issued by the federal Housing and Urban Development
6
(“HUD”) department on June 1, 2017, found that the vacancy rate in Anaheim,
7
Santa Ana, and Irvine declined from 2010 to 2017 from 5.9 % to 3.6%, and
8
average rents rose 3% in May 2017.3 With almost 90,000 people on the housing
9
authority waiting lists hoping for access to affordable housing4, the housing
10
resources remain woefully insufficient.
11
7.
These conclusions were recently reinforced in a 2017 report issued by
12
United Way, prepared in coordination with the University of California Irvine and
13
the Association of California Cities. The report, “Homelessness in Orange
14
County: The Costs to Our Community,” found that 75 percent of the homeless
15
individuals surveyed lived in Orange County for at least six years, with most more
16
than 10 years.5 Cutting against the usual stereotypes that homeless individuals are
17
substance abusers or mentally ill, the United Way report found that the single
18
greatest factor leading to homelessness in Orange County, by far, is “the gap
19
between the availability of affordable housing and work that pays a wage sufficient
20
to enable the economically marginal to access that housing.”6
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and
Research, Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis Anaheim-Santa Ana- Irvine,
California, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/AnaheimCA-comp-17.
4
Susan Price, An Assessment of Homeless Services in Orange County,
http://bos.ocgov.com/ceo/care/HOMELESS%20ASSESSMENT%20DCC%20REPO
RT_10.18.2016.pdf, pg. 21
5
Homelessness in Orange County: The Costs to Our Community, available at
unitedwayoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/united-way, p. 31.
6
Id., p. 34.
5
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 6 of 40 Page ID #:6
1
8.
Both the Price Report for the County and the United Way report agree
2
that economic disparity is the primary cause of homelessness in the region. Despite
3
the fact that the vast majority of the unhoused population in the County is in this
4
situation through no fault of their own, the response of the government entities has
5
been to punish poverty. Nearly every City in the County criminalizes
6
homelessness through ordinances that make it unlawful to be present, sit or sleep in
7
a public place even if a person is without a home. To avoid harassment and
8
incarceration for violating these and similar laws criminalizing the basic
9
necessities of living, many people move to locations such as the Santa Ana
10
Riverbed, hoping that law enforcement will not interfere or harass them while they
11
try to survive.
12
9.
In addition to the Riverbed encampment, another 200 people are
13
unsheltered at the Santa Ana Civic Center. The unhoused population at this
14
location was nearly 500 people until late 2016 when the joint city and County
15
authorities incrementally evicted each smaller encampment in the Civic Center.
16
This action followed Santa Ana and Orange County blaming each other for the
17
failure to address this crisis and calling for the County’s first year round
18
emergency shelter7. In the meantime, more than half of the people who occupied
19
the Civic Center in 2016 moved to the Santa Ana Riverbed. While the County did
20
open the Courtyard, an emergency shelter in Santa Ana, it was inadequate to meet
21
the needs of the unhoused population and quickly filled to double the approved
22
capacity nightly, with people dropped off there by hospitals, various cities’ police,
23
social workers, and others with nowhere else to bring homeless people.
24
25
10.
The need to respond to the increasing numbers of unsheltered
individuals in Orange County is hardly new and neither is the approach of
26
27
28
https://www.ocregister.com/2016/09/08/santa-ana-declares-homeless-camp-at-civiccenter-a-public-health-crisis-wants-more-security/
7
6
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 7 of 40 Page ID #:7
1
criminalizing - rather than housing - people who are homeless. More than a decade
2
ago, the Orange County Grand Jury issued a report on “The Homeless Crisis in
3
Orange County.” The report noted then that “[h]omelessness is on the rise, often
4
misunderstood, and is inextricably linked to poverty.” From 1990 to 2005 the
5
homeless population increased at a far greater rate than the overall increase in
6
population in the County. The Grand Jury report concluded that addressing the
7
problem “does not appear to be a priority with the Board of Supervisors.” The
8
Grand Jury listed a series of measures to address the crisis then being considered
9
by various municipal entities in the County, including plans to add housing for
10
homeless individuals at the former El Toro Marine Air Station; shelters in San
11
Clemente, Buena Park, Westminster, La Habra and Cypress, and a very
12
“humanistic” outreach approach by the Santa Ana Police Department and Orange
13
County Sheriff’s Department. A dozen years later, few, if any, of these intentions
14
have been realized.
15
11.
The 2005 Grand Jury Report also reviewed the history of
16
recommendations in similar reports, going back to 1988. The 2005 Report
17
concluded that few of the earlier recommendations had been implemented. The
18
Grand Jury report demonstrates that, over the past 25 years, the primary response
19
of the County and the Cities has been to invest in approaches that address the
20
visible presence of homeless people as a blight, without significantly reducing the
21
number of residents on the street each night. These approaches include
22
criminalizing homelessness by arresting homeless individuals for loitering, making
23
it illegal to sleep in public places at night, seizing and destroying homeless
24
people’s property, and engaging in a pattern of warrantless stops and
25
interrogations. The identical practices have been repeatedly challenged and
26
enjoined by judges of the Central District in Los Angeles and the Ninth Circuit,
27
uniformly rejecting these practices criminalizing homelessness as a violation of the
28
First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. There is no credible reason
7
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 8 of 40 Page ID #:8
1
why Orange County and local cities’ officials would not be aware of the judicial
2
rulings on these issues because they have been highly publicized throughout the
3
region, if not the nation, and discussed at public meetings of these entities.
4
12.
The County and Cities’ approach is even more indefensible when
5
viewed against the directives issued by the United States Interagency Council on
6
Homelessness (“USICH”), composed of nineteen federal cabinet and agency heads
7
to organize federal efforts to end homelessness. The most recent USICH report,
8
“Ending Homelessness for People Living in Encampments,” is directly on point
9
and counter to the approach taken by the County to the Plaintiffs and other
10
homeless individuals forced to live along the river in large part because of the
11
government’s failures over decades.
12
13.
Specifically, the USICH underscored that “forced dispersal” of
13
homeless encampments is inappropriate and undermines the goal of providing
14
services to homeless individuals. While the USICH underscored the importance of
15
“intensive and persistent outreach and engagement,” the County has instead opted
16
to disperse the encampment by telling homeless people that they are no longer
17
permitted to camp in the riverbed and will be cited or arrested for trespass if they
18
remain, forcing them to move out into the streets of nearby cities including
19
Anaheim, Orange, and Costa Mesa. Similarly, the Cities have dispersed
20
encampments, telling people that they are not welcome in the city, their mere
21
presence is a crime, and they will be ticketed or arrested if they remain. Until now,
22
the Cities have coupled their threats with a direction to relocate to the area along
23
the river.
24
25
FACTS
14.
In February 2017, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
26
concerning the County’s earlier enforcement actions against approximately 1,000
27
individuals living in the Riverbed. See Schuler v. County of Orange, No. 8:17-cv-
28
00259 DOC KES, (C.D. Ca. 2017) [Dkt. #1]. On March 7, 2017, the parties
8
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 9 of 40 Page ID #:9
1
stipulated to, and the Court granted, a preliminary injunction to prevent the County
2
from violating individuals’ constitutional rights in a designated area of the
3
Riverbed just north of the Santa Ana Freeway and south of Ball Road (“the
4
Injunction Area.”). [Dkt. #30] The area designated in the preliminary injunction
5
and in the settlement subsequently reached by the parties is the same area at issue
6
in this action.
7
15.
After the settlement in Schuler, the County contracted with City Net
8
to provide services to people in the Injunction Area. In July 2017, City Net
9
surveyed 422 people of those then living there. Of those interviewed, 81.2% were
10
interested in having City Net become their case managers and seek housing and
11
services for them. When asked where they lived previously, 25% reported they
12
were from Anaheim, approximately 11% were from Santa Ana, and 9.7% were
13
from Orange. Since this survey was done, the population in the Santa Ana
14
Riverbed has increased, as people have been moved from other areas into the
15
Injunction Area at the direction of the County.
16
16.
In the year since the injunction issued, the County failed to take steps
17
to provide a safe environment for the unsheltered population in the Riverbed or to
18
find alternative locations. The public discussions of the Board of Supervisors
19
underscore that the County’s preferred approach was criminalization.
20
17.
In June 2017, the County began to discuss providing basic necessities
21
in the Injunction Area of drinking water, mobile showers, and even night access to
22
the one public restroom in the area. Ultimately, the County determined not to
23
provide most of these facilities and did not provide nighttime access to the
24
restroom. In addition, although the County agreed to provide plastic bags to assist
25
with trash pick-up in the Injunction Area, this was done in an inconsistent and
26
insufficient manner.
27
28
18.
In August 2017, Orange County Public Works made public a plan to
change the topography of the Riverbed in order to make it “less desirable for
9
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 10 of 40 Page ID #:10
1
occupation.” The Public Works presentation showed how the use of rocks in the
2
Santa Ana Riverbed effectively made the area impossible for a person to lie down
3
and sleep. Again, the County chose to invest in harassment instead of solutions.8
4
The County made clear that the primary reason for the Riverbed project was to use
5
rocks and large boulders to exclude the flat land from use by homeless persons.
6
19.
In September 2017, Supervisor Nelson drafted a plan to use County
7
land in Irvine as a temporary shelter. The Board of Supervisors rejected that plan
8
and instead voted to develop that land into a massive new project containing luxury
9
condominiums and upscale retail shops.9
10
20.
While the County rejected measures to address homelessness, the
11
Cities were taking similar actions. In August 2017, Anaheim City Council
12
considered community requests to install restrooms near the Santa Ana Riverbed
13
and offers of organizers to provide and maintain those restrooms. Anaheim
14
rejected the proposal and stated that the County should take responsibility for the
15
needs of the people sleeping on County property.10
16
21.
In September 2017, the Anaheim City Council passed “Operation
17
Home Safe,” put forward as a comprehensive program to address homelessness
18
along the Santa Ana Riverbed. A main goal of the program was to identify
19
locations for at least 500 shelter beds or other housing options. Additionally, the
20
City of Anaheim committed to expediting the availability of 100 more beds at the
21
Bridges shelter. To date, neither of those things has happened. The only part of the
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
https://voiceofoc.org/2017/08/county-used-rock-riprap-sand-to-make-santa-anariverbank-less-desirable-for-occupation/
9
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/11/06/orange-county-to-finalize-plan-for-greatpark-condo-retail-development-as-irvine-threatens-lawsuit/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx3CSQnIJsM
10
http://www.scpr.org/news/2017/08/29/75117/anaheim-to-consider-portabletoilets-for-homeless/
10
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 11 of 40 Page ID #:11
1
plan that was implemented over the last four months involved significantly
2
increased police enforcement.11
3
22.
In September 2017, Orange Council Member Alvarez announced that
4
the City would be reviewing its loitering, vagrancy, and panhandling laws to
5
strengthen them to provide the police with more tools to combat homelessness.12
6
23.
There is no question that the Defendants, along with other Cities, have
7
coordinated enforcement actions against unhoused individuals living in the
8
Riverbed. On September 5, 2017, Anaheim Police Chief Quezada met with
9
command staff from the Fountain Valley, Orange and Santa Ana Police
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Departments, along with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. Representatives
from these law enforcement groups met again a few days later to discuss
coordination of deployment schedules for enforcement in the Riverbed. As part of
this plan, the Anaheim Police Department implemented bike patrols on the
Riverbed and assigned additional officers to patrol in the Injunction Area. On
information and belief, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department is the lead agency
for this coordinated enforcement action.
24.
18
On October 26, 2017, the County Flood Control District announced
19
that restricted hours for bike trail access in Fountain Valley and complete closure
20
of public access to the west side of the Riverbed in Fountain Valley. More than
21
100 unhoused residents of Fountain Valley were living along the West bank of the
22
Riverbed at the time as the area was next to a public storage facility and an area
23
where they would not be impeding traffic. It was a location where they thought
24
25
26
27
28
11
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/09/13/after-anaheim-declares-a-state-ofemergency-homeless-along-river-bed-ponder-whats-next/
12
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/09/13/after-anaheim-declares-a-state-ofemergency-homeless-along-river-bed-ponder-whats-next/
11
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 12 of 40 Page ID #:12
1
they would avoid harassment by law enforcement. The majority of this community
2
came to the Riverbed after being forced out of nearby cities including Costa Mesa,
3
and then slowly moved north in the Riverbed as the County closed parts of the
4
Riverbed for a series of maintenance projects.13
5
25.
The Orange County Sheriff and Public Works employees began
6
clearing the Fountain Valley area on November 3, 2017 by announcing to people
7
that they would not be allowed to remain, and threatening people with citation.
8
The County employees told people that the Injunction Area would not be impacted
9
by the change in hours or closure.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26.
In fact, at that time, one of the Public Works employees told a local
activist to hurry and move the people residing in the Fountain Valley Riverbed to
the Injunction Area. He stated that the Fountain Valley bike trail was now closed
to the public at night, but that people could continue to reside in the Injunction
Area.
27.
A large group of people from Fountain Valley relocated and
reconstituted their community near Katella Road by the bike trail.
28.
The relocation of persons from Fountain Valley and other areas of the
Riverbed systematically closed by Defendants increased the number present in the
Injunction Area significantly. There are an estimated 800 to 1,200 people living in
the Riverbed now.
29.
At about the same time, the County contracted with private security to
prevent homeless people from entering the Santa Ana Riverbed during the newlyrestricted hours outside the Injunction Area.14 At about the same time, the City of
25
26
27
28
13
https://voiceofoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/County-Announces-ActiveEnforcement-of-Public-Hours-Along-Santa-Ana-River-Trail-FINAL.pdf
14
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/11/14/orange-county-to-hire-private-guardsto-help-enforce-riverbed-curfew-that-displaced-homeless/
12
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 13 of 40 Page ID #:13
1
Orange hired private security to patrol its parks in the evenings to prevent
2
homeless individuals from sleeping at those locations. By January 2018, Anaheim
3
also hired private security to police the homeless.15
4
30.
On January 8, 2018, two months after Public Works relocated
5
approximately 100 homeless individuals from the Fountain Valley area to the
6
Injunction Area, the agency announced that it would clear the Injunction Area as
7
well.16 The County decided on this plan long before January; however, less than
8
two weeks’ notice was given for people to relocate.
9
31.
The “Work Notice” posted by the Orange County Public Works
10
Department on January 8th during the years first rain, stated that the bike trail
11
would be closed to public access beginning January 22, 2018 at 6:00 a.m. It
12
warned that unauthorized persons remaining in the “Work Area” would be “subject
13
to citation and prosecution for trespass.”
14
32.
The Work Area, as explained by the Notice, encompasses the entire
15
“Injunction Area” agreed to in Schuler. Area #1 includes the West Bank of the
16
Santa Ana River Channel, between the Santa Ana Freeway (the 5 Freeway) and
17
Katella Avenue. Area #2 includes the East Bank of the Santa Ana River Channel,
18
between Katella Avenue and Ball Road/Taft Avenue.
19
33.
County memoranda make clear that after the work in the Riverbed is
20
complete, homeless people will not be allowed to return, even if they could find a
21
flat piece of ground. The new hours for the bike path, as set by the Director of the
22
Flood Control District, will be 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM in the winter and 7:00 AM to
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/23/anaheim-adds-security-as-officialsbrace-for-homeless-exodus/
16
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/04/orange-county-plans-to-clear-entireriverbed-homeless-encampment-within-weeks-officials-say/
13
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 14 of 40 Page ID #:14
1
9:00 PM in the summer. There has been no public comment or hearing on this
2
change.
3
34.
After the County announced in January that it would close the
4
Injunction Area, several surrounding cities took steps to prevent homeless
5
individuals from coming into their communities. The City of Orange quickly
6
distributed flyers and visited local housing and business facilities to request that
7
they notify law enforcement if they see homeless individuals in the City. The City
8
of Anaheim similarly announced that people currently in the Santa Ana Riverbed
9
cannot move into their city. 17
10
35.
As of January 19, 2018, City Net has 171 people in the Riverbed who
11
are actively seeking services from City Net but who are not yet placed in any
12
housing or shelter.18
13
14
15
THE LACK OF ADEQUATE SHELTER
16
36.
The available shelter spaces in the County are woefully inadequate
17
both in number and accessibility to meet the needs of the unsheltered population.
18
By the County’s own estimates, more than 2,500 people lacked any shelter in the
19
2017 Point-in-Time Count. The first year-round emergency shelter is at nearly
20
double its original intended capacity, making it extremely crowded and creating
21
barriers for disabled individuals. On a typical night, over 400 people sleep in very
22
close quarters in the repurposed bus terminal without walls. The first year-round
23
24
25
26
27
28
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/21/orange-county-is-ready-to-clear-out-thesanta-ana-riverbed-homeless-encampment-but-where-and-exactly-when-will-theygo/ (“In Anaheim, officials bracing for an influx of homeless people have reiterated
that their city – like 32 others in Orange County – . . . has an anti-camping
ordinance that forbids pitching tents on sidewalks or in public parks.”)
18
http://www.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=71640 pg. 5
17
14
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 15 of 40 Page ID #:15
1
transitional shelter was scheduled to start operating by September 2016 with plans
2
for 200 beds by the end of 2017.19 Under immense pressure with the growing
3
homeless population, the County opened the first 100 beds months earlier in open
4
warehouse in May 2017. To date, the second hundred beds have not been realized.
5
37.
The two emergency shelters are similarly inadequate and only operate
6
during winter months. This season, the Santa Ana Armory is open from October
7
30, 2017 until April 15, 2018 and the. Fullerton Armory Shelter is only open from
8
December 1, 2017 until April 15, 2018. There is not enough room in these two
9
temporary shelters for the nearly 1000 people that live at the Riverbed. In little
10
more than two months, the Armories will not be available at all.
11
38.
The Fullerton Armory has only 237 total spots, while the Santa Ana
12
Armory has only 200 spots. On information and belief, these two shelters were at
13
about half capacity prior to the beginning of the Riverbed clearance. Sleeping
14
facilities are limited to thin mats on the floor which are inaccessible for people
15
with wheelchairs or other mobility challenges because of the very close quarters in
16
most shelters that make it difficult, if not impossible, for people with mobility
17
challenges to sleep in this space, especially if the shelter rules prevent their
18
partners from helping them. Both of the emergency winter shelters prohibit couples
19
from staying together, do not allow support animals, and limit possessions to small
20
bags of belongings without a storage option for other property. Additionally, the
21
Armories only accept people who are able to come and go at the required hours.
22
For people who work, have to attend court or meet with service providers, the
23
restricted hours impose an additional hurdle to staying at the emergency shelters.
24
25
39.
In 2017, the County opened the Bridges shelter in Anaheim. In order
to get into Bridges, a person must be referred by a non-profit partner social
26
27
28
https://www.ocregister.com/2016/09/15/mercy-house-to-operate-year-roundanaheim-homeless-shelter/
19
15
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 16 of 40 Page ID #:16
1
services agency and the individual must be staying within the northern cities of
2
Orange County, which include Anaheim and Orange, but not Costa Mesa. The
3
admission process for Bridges is daunting: a person must call a number to start the
4
intake process. That telephone number is usually busy and it can take hours, if not
5
days, to get through to the shelter. The first step is to provide information for a
6
background check that must be completed before admission. The homeless
7
individual must wait to receive a call back if they are approved and meet at a
8
pickup location at a specific time. The admission process is often so discouraging
9
that people give up after a few days of calling. If a person gains admission, they
10
can only stay at the Bridges shelter for a limited amount of time. If they are unable
11
to find regular housing at the end of six months, they are usually required to leave.
12
40.
In 2016, the County opened the Courtyard – a converted bus terminal
13
that was initially approved for 200-250 people and now houses about 400 people
14
per night. This shelter is typically at or near double capacity and the only way to
15
get in is to show up and request entry. Because it is not near any other shelter, this
16
means that a person who shows up and is told that the Courtyard is full will likely
17
have no choice but to sleep outside because it is too late to find transportation and
18
get to any other shelter before it closes for the night.
19
41.
In addition to the public shelters, there are a few private facilities in
20
the County. The Salvation Army runs the Hospitality House in Santa Ana with 25
21
beds for transitional housing and 25 beds for emergency shelter, all for men. A
22
requirement of staying in the Hospitality House is attendance at a meeting before
23
dinner during which a religious service with prayer is held. Clients must arrive
24
between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m. On almost all nights, the Hospitality House is at
25
capacity. To enter this shelter, a man must arrive by 3:30 in the afternoon to put his
26
name into a lottery. If he is not selected, he can wait until 5:00 to see if another
27
man misses curfew. There are almost always more applicants than beds. In January
28
2018, there were only between 2 and 12 beds available for the lottery each night.
16
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 17 of 40 Page ID #:17
1
42.
Significantly, to stay at the Hospitality House you must be able-
2
bodied and employable. Service animals will only be admitted with federal
3
paperwork at the Hospitality House. No support animals are permitted.
4
43.
Another shelter, Colette’s House, is open only to women and children.
5
In this six-month transitional program, women are required to have a job and work
6
32 hours per week. No animals are allowed. Colette’s House is usually at
7
capacity.
8
44.
9
A further complication is that the plans the County has made for
storage make it difficult for people to accept shelter. Rather than transporting
10
property to storage near the shelters, the County is storing property near the
11
Riverbed. In order to accept shelter, the persons going to the Armory must leave
12
any excess property behind. The Fullerton Armory is two bus rides away and takes
13
more than an hour to reach without a car. Thus, it will be difficult for persons in
14
the Fullerton Armory to access their property at the Riverbed. Most of the shelters
15
in the County are a considerable distance from the Riverbed planned storage.
16
17
PARTIES
18
PLAINTIFFS:
19
Orange County Catholic Worker
20
45.
Plaintiff Orange County Catholic Worker operates a community at
21
Isaiah House in Santa Ana. In furtherance of its mission, Isaiah House of the
22
Orange County Catholic Worker has served poor people with dignity since
23
1987, providing meals for the homeless, shelter, bags of food and clothing,
24
showers, and emergency assistance. Jordan Hoiberg is a member of the Orange
25
County Catholic Worker. Since joining the Catholic Worker, Mr. Hoiberg has
26
gone to encampments almost every day. He engages with each person he meets
27
and helps them connect with available resources. On some days he delivers food
28
and on others he brings books or tents.
17
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 18 of 40 Page ID #:18
1
46.
Through his work in the Santa Ana Riverbed over the last year, he has
2
observed that an estimated 800 to1200 people are currently in the area that will be
3
displaced by the planned action to close the Injunction Area. While providing
4
service in the riverbed, Mr. Hoiberg observed that the trash has not been removed
5
by the County on a regular and frequent basis. Homeless people regularly ask Mr.
6
Hoiberg if he can help them to get trash bags so they might clean. On some
7
occasions, Mr. Hoiberg has organized volunteers and purchased bags to help clean
8
the area.
9
47.
Over the past year, Mr. Hoiberg has attended a number of local city
10
and county meetings where he observed decisions made to approve funds for
11
increases in law enforcement in the Riverbed. He has been present for council
12
meetings of the named Defendant governments where the agenda included
13
discussions of the homelessness crisis and the need for housing.
14
48.
Carrying out the mission of the Catholic Worker, each time the
15
County decides to relocate the homeless population, Mr. Hoiberg organizes
16
volunteers and resources to help people move their belongings. In recent months,
17
he has been present and observed County employees direct people in other areas of
18
the Riverbed to move into the Injunction Area. With other volunteers, he has then
19
assisted these individuals to move their property to the Injunction Area. As each
20
adverse action is taken by the government, the Catholic Worker has had to shift
21
priorities to respond to these measures and provide additional resources for
22
homeless individuals targeted.
23
49.
In 2017, he observed actions taken by the cities and county to exclude
24
homeless people from their jurisdictions, including removal of benches that
25
homeless individuals could lawfully sit on, restricting hours of parking to prevent
26
homeless individuals living in their vehicles in the area, increasing police and
27
private security presence, and other tactics to encourage people to leave the county.
28
Mr. Hoiberg is familiar with the area and available social services and does not
18
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 19 of 40 Page ID #:19
1
know of any place homeless individuals can relocate without violating laws against
2
camping on public places, placing property on public places, loitering and similar
3
ordinances. Part of Mr. Hoiberg’s job with the Catholic Worker is to help at
4
Isaiah House. In that role, he has assisted women who came to Isaiah House from
5
the Bridges shelter and the Courtyard shelter. Based on his experience, he is aware
6
that there is a time limit for those in the transitional shelter at Bridges and that once
7
that time limit is reached, if the individual had not found other housing, she must
8
leave Bridges.
9
10
Lisa Bell
11
50.
Plaintiff LISA BELL is homeless and physically disabled. In August
12
2007, she sustained severe nerve damage in her arms and hand, which developed
13
into a medical condition known as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. She lost her
14
job and her sole source of income became Social Security Disability Insurance
15
(SSDI). With limited income, Ms. Bell could not afford her rent. She spent her
16
savings to cover her living expenses, still hoping that she would be well enough to
17
return to work soon.
18
51.
Ms. Bell ultimately ran out of money, lost her home, and began living
19
in her vehicle in the City of Anaheim. While living in her vehicle, she had
20
approximately 30 interactions with Anaheim Police Officers who eventually forced
21
her out of the City of Anaheim. She was consistently told that she could not reside
22
in her vehicle and that she “better not be seen in Anaheim again.” One day, her
23
vehicle was towed for allegedly having been parked on a public street for 72 hours.
24
In fact, her vehicle had been parked in one location for only four hours, but Ms.
25
Bell did not have the money to pay the towing and impound fee, nor the resources
26
to challenge the seizure of her vehicle.
27
28
52.
Having no alternative, Ms. Bell now resides in a tent in the
Riverbed. When the cold-weather Armory in Fullerton opened, Ms. Bell attempted
19
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 20 of 40 Page ID #:20
1
to stay there, but the setting and the overwhelming crowd exacerbated her
2
agoraphobia and caused her to have a severe panic attack. Because of her
3
disabilities, she is unable to return.
4
53.
Since returning to the Riverbed, Ms. Bell has been actively working
5
with City Net to secure affordable housing. She has completed the City Net
6
assessment and provided the necessary paperwork to confirm she has been
7
homeless for more than one year. Ms. Bell is doing everything she can to secure
8
affordable housing. Meanwhile, she fears that she will be cited and arrested for
9
violating local ordinances barring sleeping in public spaces even though she has no
10
viable alternative space to sleep.
11
12
Shawn Carroll
13
54.
Plaintiff SHAWN CARROLL is homeless and suffers from a serious
14
medical condition that requires him to wear a life-saving medical alert device at all
15
times. He worked in the automotive industry until 2006. At that time, he had to
16
care full-time for his aging and mentally disabled parents. In 2015, after his parents
17
passed and their home was sold, Mr. Carroll began living in his vehicle. His
18
efforts to secure a trucking license and regain employment were unsuccessful.
19
55.
While living in his vehicle, Mr. Carroll was repeatedly questioned
20
and told to move along by law enforcement officers in Anaheim and Garden
21
Grove. Mr. Carroll would often go days at a time without sleeping because he
22
could not find a place to park without harassment by the police. In April 2016,
23
after his vehicle was impounded, and unable to afford to recover the car, Mr.
24
Carroll began sleeping on the streets. He arrived at the Riverbed, where he thought
25
law enforcement was less likely to harass him, with only the clothes he was
26
wearing and a backpack with a few belongings.
27
28
56.
In December 2016, Mr. Carroll’s medical providers discovered that he
was at risk of sudden cardiac arrest. Now, he must use a wearable defibrillator at
20
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 21 of 40 Page ID #:21
1
all times. The device digitally sends data to his medical providers who can
2
administer a treatment shock if an abnormal heart rhythm is detected. This device
3
must remain powered at all times. For months, Mr. Carroll would walk to the UCI
4
Medical Center lobby to charge the battery packs and wireless hotspot that power
5
his defibrillator. Then, a Huntington Beach church group donated a small
6
generator to Mr. Carroll.
7
57.
Mr. Carroll has tried going to the Orange County Courtyard Shelter in
8
Santa Ana, but it is always at capacity and people are often sleeping outside
9
waiting to get in. Mr. Carroll’s income is limited to General Relief in the amount
10
11
of $355. He has no viable alternative but to sleep in the Riverbed.
58.
Mr. Carroll has routinely been stopped by law enforcement for
12
unavoidable or lawful behavior. On July 7, 2017, Mr. Carroll was exiting the
13
Riverbed, when the Orange Police Department cited him for allegedly riding his
14
bicycle in the opposite direction of traffic, even though Mr. Carroll was riding on
15
the sidewalk at the time he was cited. During the stop, the Orange police officer
16
explained that he was informed by his superiors to have “zero tolerance for the
17
homeless.”
18
59.
On at least four occasions, Orange County Sheriff’s Deputies have
19
stopped Mr. Carroll in the Riverbed and asked for his identification, social security
20
number, and what plans he had to leave the Riverbed. The Orange County
21
Sherriff’s Deputies have repeatedly told Mr. Carroll that camping is prohibited in
22
the Riverbed and he is fearful that he will be cited and convicted for violating such
23
laws in the future because he has no alternative place to go.
24
60.
If he stays in the Riverbed, he will be faces a citation by the County of
25
Orange for trespass. If he leaves and goes back to Anaheim or Orange, he will be
26
cited for camping. While trying to ensure he does not miss any medical
27
appointments and reduce stress to manage a life threatening medical condition, Mr.
28
21
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 22 of 40 Page ID #:22
1
Carroll is left with nowhere to sleep that does not put him at risk of citation and
2
arrest.
3
4
Melissa Fields
5
61.
Plaintiff Melissa Fields has been homeless since January, 2017. She
6
is employed in Costa Mesa. She works between 25 and 30 hours a week at a
7
minimum wage job and does not make enough to afford an apartment in Orange
8
County.
9
62.
Before Ms. Fields moved to the Santa Ana Riverbed bike trail, she
10
attempted to sleep on the streets of Costa Mesa, in order to be close to her
11
workplace. She slept in a sleeping bag on the ground with no tent or structure and
12
with a backpack full of clothing. Ms. Fields does not have a car and uses the bike
13
path to get to and from her job.
14
63.
In the months before she moved to the Riverbed, Ms. Fields was
15
stopped and cited by the Costa Mesa police multiple times for being unhoused.
16
Some, but not all, of these tickets were dismissed when she went to court. In
17
February and March 2017, Ms. Fields received at least two tickets for camping in a
18
public area or parking lot and one ticket for camping in a park. She was informed
19
that if she continued to sleep outside in Costa Mesa, she would continue to receive
20
citations.
21
64.
After receiving those tickets, Ms. Fields moved to the Fountain Valley
22
section of the Riverbed to avoid arrest in Costa Mesa. She did so because she
23
feared that she would be ticketed in the middle of the night or arrested if she stayed
24
in public places in Costa Mesa. If arrested, she feared losing her job, She remained
25
in the Fountain Valley section of the Riverbed until the first week of November
26
when the County forced people out of the area. Ms. Fields then moved to the
27
Anaheim/Orange section of the Riverbed to maintain the support of the community
28
she had gotten to know. As a woman alone and unhoused, she feels unsafe without
22
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 23 of 40 Page ID #:23
1
a nearby community of people she knows. She commutes daily from Anaheim to
2
her workplace in Costa Mesa.
3
65.
Ms. Fields is currently working with a Community Outreach Worker
4
to try and find housing. She also engaged with County Health Care Workers
5
during her time in the Fountain Valley Riverbed. To date, social service agencies
6
have not found suitable housing for her. Because of her work schedule, she is
7
unable to meet the curfew at the emergency shelters.
8
9
66.
After receiving those tickets, Ms. Fields moved to the Fountain Valley
section of the Riverbed to avoid arrest in Costa Mesa. She did so because she
10
feared that she would be ticketed in the middle of the night or arrested if she stayed
11
in public places in Costa Mesa. If arrested, she feared losing her job, She remained
12
in the Fountain Valley section of the Riverbed until the first week of November
13
when the County forced people out of the area. She commutes daily from
14
Anaheim to her workplace in Costa Mesa.
15
67.
If forced to relocate again, Ms. Fields would return to the area of
16
Costa Mesa she used to sleep in to be closer to her work. However, she is informed
17
and believes that if she does that, the Costa Mesa police officers will continue to
18
cite her and threaten her with arrest until she leaves the city.
19
20
Larry Ford
21
68.
Plaintiff LARRY FORD is an Army Veteran. He served honorably
22
and joined the reserves upon his discharge. Mr. Ford suffers from service-related
23
disabilities that limit his ability to be in loud and crowded spaces. He receives
24
treatment at the Long Beach VA Hospital.
25
69.
About four years ago, Mr. Ford was laid off from his construction job
26
when the company needed to reduce the staff. Around the same time, he incurred
27
an injury that required surgery. At first he received unemployment but during the
28
23
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 24 of 40 Page ID #:24
1
long wait for surgery at the VA hospital he was unable to find additional
2
employment. Soon he could no longer pay rent and he became homeless.
3
70.
At first, he stayed in his car but eventually his car was towed and he
4
was left with no alternative to sleeping outside. Because the car held his work tools
5
and all his personal belongings he tried to get it back. However, it was sold before
6
he could get the funds to reclaim it. He tried to stay in the seasonal shelter at the
7
Armory. He could not tolerate the crowded environment because of his disabilities
8
and left before the morning. While living outside with nowhere else to go, Mr.
9
Ford has had to move many times when different Riverbed maintenance projects
10
were announced. He moved a little north each time finally ending up just above
11
Katella with others from the former Fountain Valley area. Each time, he lost more
12
of his meager possessions and the stress of moving exacerbated his medical
13
conditions.
14
71.
If forced to relocate outside the Riverbed, Mr. Ford would have
15
nowhere to go other than the nearby city sidewalks. Mr. Ford has observed
16
homeless individuals cited for violations of the law when they are in public places
17
outside of the Riverbed. He is fearful that he, too, will be cited for violations of
18
ordinances based on unavoidable life necessities resulting from his homelessness.
19
20
Cameron Ralston
21
72.
Plaintiff CAMERON RALSTON has been sleeping outside for the
22
past year. He is currently staying in the Injunction Area. Approximately three
23
years ago, Mr. Ralston was hit by a car and became physically disabled. He
24
continued to experience trauma that led to his current and ongoing struggles with
25
mental health. Because of these conditions, Mr. Ralston requires an emotional
26
support animal. He is unable to work and his only income is General Relief and
27
CalFresh. Over the past year, Mr. Ralston has tried to stay in Orange but was
28
24
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 25 of 40 Page ID #:25
1
repeatedly stopped and detained by the Orange Police Department based on his
2
status as a homeless individual.
3
73.
On January 24, 2018, as the City of Orange increased its enforcement
4
in preparation for the County closure of the Riverbed, Mr. Ralston moved to the
5
city sidewalks of Orange, near the Riverbed. Mr. Ralston was again cited for
6
blocking the sidewalk. At the time, his belongings were packed and stacked off to
7
the side on a strip of grass so as not to block the walkway, leaving a clearance of
8
more than three feet. After he received the ticket for blocking the sidewalk, Mr.
9
Ralston left his neatly packed property briefly. When he returned, he observed a
10
notice of abandoned property from the Orange Police Department stating if it was
11
not moved within 24 hours it would be seized. Mr. Ralston fears that he will
12
continue to be stopped, detained, searched, and cited in Orange or any of the other
13
surrounding cities simply for being homeless if he is forced to leave the Riverbed.
14
15
Kathy Schuler
16
74.
Plaintiff KATHY SCHULER is homeless and currently sleeping in a
17
makeshift shelter in the Riverbed. Ms. Schuler and her deceased partner became
18
homeless in the months before his death in 2015. Because her partner was the sole
19
wage earner throughout their life, Ms. Schuler had limited work experience and
20
could not secure gainful employment when her partner became ill. When the two
21
could no longer afford to live in their Anaheim rental, they became homeless and
22
began staying at various shelters. During that time, they began to care for their
23
then four-year-old grandson who also lived with them at shelters.
24
75.
Initially, Ms. Schuler and her family tried the Fullerton Armory. They
25
were referred by the Fullerton Armory to the Santa Ana Armory. The Armory is
26
only open a few months a year. Ms. Schuler stayed there until it closed and she
27
was referred to a shelter in Anaheim Hills, an area she could not travel to by bike
28
because of the distance and terrain. Following her partner’s death in July 2015,
25
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 26 of 40 Page ID #:26
1
she finally relocated to the Riverbed with her grandson. Her grandson lived with
2
her in the Riverbed until he was placed in a foster home.
3
76.
In the Riverbed, Ms. Schuler regularly cleans the area where she stays
4
and helps others to do the same. However, her efforts have been stymied by the
5
failure of the County often to provide trash bags despite the existing injunction.
6
77.
Since moving to the Riverbed, she has been subjected to citations and
7
threats of arrest by the City of Orange and the County. On August 20, 2015, the
8
Orange Police Department cited Ms. Schuler in the Riverbed for allegedly
9
violating Orange County Ordinance, Section 2-5-95, unlawful camping upon land
10
11
owned by the County. Ms. Schuler was in the Riverbed at the time.
78.
Despite the threats of citation and arrest by Orange County Sheriff’s
12
Deputies and the Orange Police Department, Ms. Schuler has no alternative but to
13
live in the Riverbed. Her adult children and granddaughter have since fallen into a
14
similar plight and they are also living in the Riverbed. The Schulers have been on
15
a subsidized housing waitlist for approximately four months. Until they can secure
16
affordable housing, Ms. Schuler fears that she will be arrested and convicted for
17
behavior that violates the Orange County and City of Orange ordinances.
18
19
20
Gloria Shoemake
79.
Plaintiff GLORIA SHOEMAKE has been homeless in Orange
21
County since October 2014. She has lived in different parts of the Riverbed during
22
that time. She has multiple disabilities that affect her ability to focus and complete
23
tasks. To help with this disability, she has emotional support animals. Despite
24
engaging with County outreach workers for approximately a year, Ms. Shoemake
25
has not been placed in housing.
26
27
80.
Ms. Shoemake tries hard to keep her belongings cleaned and
organized. However, many times she finds there are no trash bags available. She
28
26
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 27 of 40 Page ID #:27
1
has noticed that when trash is picked up and bags are distributed the area gets
2
much cleaner but often the County fails to pick up all the trash.
3
81.
If the maintenance project proceeds, she has no choice but to move
4
out into the City of Orange. She has close ties to Mary’s Kitchen, a service
5
provider in Orange. However, she is informed and believes based on conversations
6
with the Orange City law enforcement that if she tries to sleep outside in Orange or
7
brings her belongings to Orange she will be ticketed or arrested to force her to
8
leave the city.
9
82.
Ms. Shoemake experiences increasing harm as the stress and fear of
10
where to sleep without risk of being detained or arrested exacerbate her medical
11
conditions.
12
13
14
DEFENDANTS:
83.
Defendant ORANGE COUNTY is a government entity with the
15
capacity to sue and be sued. The departments of the COUNTY include the Public
16
Works, the Orange County Sheriff, and other departments. Employees of the
17
COUNTY have engaged in the acts complained of herein pursuant to the policies,
18
practices and customs of the COUNTY.
19
84.
Defendant ANAHEIM is a government entity with the capacity to sue
20
and be sued. The departments of ANAHEIM include the Anaheim Police
21
Department. Employees of ANAHEIM have engaged in the acts complained of
22
herein pursuant to the policies, practices and customs of ANAHEIM.
23
85.
Defendant CITY OF ORANGE is a government entity with the
24
capacity to sue and be sued. The departments of the CITY OF ORANGE include
25
the Orange Police Department. Employees of the ORANGE have engaged in the
26
acts complained of herein pursuant to the policies, practices and customs of the
27
CITY OF ORANGE.
28
27
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 28 of 40 Page ID #:28
1
86.
Defendant COSTA MESA is a government entity with the capacity to
2
sue and be sued. The departments of the CITY OF COSTA MESA include the
3
Costa Mesa Police Department. Employees of COSTA MESA have engaged in
4
the acts complained of herein pursuant to the policies, practices and customs of the
5
CITY OF COSTA MESA.
6
87.
The Defendants, its employees and agents, participated personally in
7
the unlawful conduct challenged herein and, to the extent that they did not
8
personally participate, authorized, acquiesced, set in motion, or otherwise failed to
9
take necessary steps to prevent the acts that resulted in the unlawful conduct and
10
the harm suffered by Plaintiffs. Each acted in concert with each other. The
11
Defendants developed and implemented a coordinated plan to increase
12
enforcement actions against the homeless community in the Riverbed and
13
surrounding cities. The challenged acts caused the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights.
14
88.
The identities and capacities of defendants DOES 1 through 10 are
15
presently unknown to plaintiffs, and on this basis, Plaintiffs sue these defendants
16
by fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend the Complaint to substitute the true
17
names and capacities of the DOE defendants when ascertained. Plaintiffs are
18
informed, believe, and thereon allege that DOES 1 through 10 are, and were at all
19
times relevant herein, employees and/or agents of the Defendant COUNTY and
20
Defendant CITIES and are responsible for the acts and omissions complained of
21
herein. Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are sued in both their official and
22
individual capacities.
23
24
25
FACTS RELATING TO COUNTY OF ORANGE
89.
County of Orange Ordinance 2-5-95 makes it “unlawful for any
26
person to camp, occupy camp facilities, use camp paraphernalia, or store personal
27
property upon any lands or easements owned or managed by the County of
28
Orange.”
28
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 29 of 40 Page ID #:29
1
2
3
4
5
90.
“Camp” is defined as “to pitch or occupy camp facilities; to use camp
paraphernalia”. Ordinance 2-5-2.
91.
“Camp facilities include but are not limited to, tents, huts or
temporary shelters”. Ordinance 2-5-2.
92.
“Camp paraphernalia [i]ncludes, but is not limited to, tarpaulins, cots,
6
beds, sleeping bags, hammocks, or non-County designated cooking facilities and
7
similar equipment.”
8
9
10
11
12
93.
The Orange Police Department has been issuing tickets over the past
two years under this County ordinance to persons living in the Riverbed.
94.
The Orange County Sheriffs have also threatened people with citation
under this ordinance as well as under trespassing laws.
95.
The “Work notice” posted by the County indicates that persons
13
remaining in the “Work Area”— the Injunction Area—will be subject to citation
14
and prosecution for trespass under California Penal Code Sections 603 and 555.
15
96.
It further indicates that people who deposit personal property in the
16
Work Area may be subject to citation and prosecution for nuisance under Penal
17
Code Sections 370 and 372.
18
19
20
FACTS RELATING TO ANAHEIM
97.
Anaheim Municipal Code §11.10 makes it “unlawful and a public
21
nuisance for any person to Camp in any Public Area.” § 11.10.030. The ordinance
22
was enacted in 2013 in response to the rising homelessness community in the city.
23
98.
Anaheim Municipal Code 11.10 makes it a crime to camp, defined as
24
“residing in or using any Public Area for living accommodation or lodging
25
purposes with one’s Personal Property or while storing one’s Personal Property”
26
and/or “constructing, maintaining, occupying, inhabiting or using Camping
27
Facilities” and/or “constructing, using, or maintaining Camping Paraphenalia.”
28
29
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 30 of 40 Page ID #:30
1
The only exception is “sleeping outside in a park . . . during the time the park is
2
open to the public.” § 11.10.020.
3
4
99.
Camping Facilities are defined as “Tents, huts, or other temporary
physical shelters.” § 11.10.020.
5
100. Camping paraphernalia is defined as “tarpaulins, cots, beds, sleeping
6
bags, bedrolls, bedding, luggage, hammocks, cooking equipment, and/or other
7
similar articles of equipment or items that are accessory to Camping Facilities.” §
8
11.10.020.
9
101. Public places include “any public streets, alleys, public parking lots,
10
public parks, public rights-of-way, parkways, public sidewalks, recreational areas
11
or other publicly-owned or controlled property.” In other words, it is prohibited to
12
be in any public place with luggage, bedrolls, or other “camping paraphernalia”
13
that one is “maintaining”.
14
15
102. Anaheim acknowledges that there are more than 900 people currently
living on the streets within its jurisdiction.
16
103. Of the people living on County property in the Santa Ana Riverbed,
17
25% of them are from Anaheim, according to one member of the Board of
18
Supervisors20 and City Net.21
19
104. Plaintiff Lisa Bell used to live in Anaheim. She was repeatedly
20
stopped by police officers who told her she would have to leave Anaheim and that
21
she could not sleep on vehicle there at least 30 times in the six months immediately
22
preceding October 2017. She was threatened on multiple occasions with citation
23
under the anti-camping ordinance.
24
25
26
27
28
20
http://beta.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-anaheim-homeless-emergency20170913-story.html
21
http://citynet.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FCC-Data-SummaryFINAL_8.23.17.pdf
30
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 31 of 40 Page ID #:31
1
105. Anaheim also has a separate provision criminalizing camping in
2
parks. Anaheim Municipal Code §13.08.020.080. It further makes it a crime to
3
“remain, stay, or loiter in any public park between 10:30 PM and 5:00 AM.”
4
Anaheim Municipal Code §13.08.020.190. Violations of these two provisions may
5
be charged as an infraction or as a misdemeanor. Anaheim Municipal Code
6
§13.08.020.220.
7
106. Anaheim also has an anti-loitering ordinance, §7.28.010. On
8
information and belief, the City of Anaheim disproportionately uses the loitering
9
ordinance against persons who appear to be homeless by detaining and
10
interrogating them without reasonable suspicion or probable cause based solely on
11
their presence and perceived homelessness.
12
107.
Anaheim’s loitering ordinance reads in full: “Any person who loiters,
13
stands or sits in or upon any public highway, alley, sidewalk or crosswalk so as to
14
in any manner hinder or obstruct the free passage therein or thereon of persons or
15
vehicles passing along the same, or so as in any manner to annoy or molest persons
16
passing along the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” §7.28.010.
17
18
108.
The Anaheim loitering ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad and
vague in violation of a long-line of Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedents.
19
20
21
FACTS RELATING TO THE CITY OF ORANGE
109.
Orange Municipal Code §12.66.030 prohibits “encampments and
22
camping on public streets and public property.” In particular, it provides that “no
23
person shall: A.. . . maintain, erect, or permit the erection of any hut, shanty, tent,
24
tarpaulin, or any other type of temporary structure under his control upon any
25
public street or public property. B. Use public street or public property for the
26
purpose of camping . . . .”
27
28
31
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 32 of 40 Page ID #:32
1
110.
Public streets are defined as “streets, roads, highways, alleys,
2
sidewalks, parkways, bridges . . . and all other facilities and areas necessary for the
3
construction, improvement, and maintenance of streets and roads.” §12.66.020.
4
111.
Public property is defined as “the exterior of any building or structure,
5
parking lot, plaza, or square, owned or controlled by the city of Orange.”
6
§12.66.020.
7
112.
Camping is defined of “the use of public streets or public property for
8
living accommodation or habitation purposes such as sleeping activities, or making
9
preparations to sleep, including the laying down of bedding for purposes of
10
sleeping or using or storing personal belongings such as non-designated City
11
cooking equipment, camping stoves, portable barbecues, sleeping bags, cots, beds,
12
hammocks, extra clothing, or personal items when it reasonably appears, in light of
13
all the circumstances, that the participants, in conducting these activities, are, in
14
fact, using the public street or public property for living accommodation or
15
habitation purposes.”
16
113.
In other words, using “personal items” or “extra clothing” on the
17
public streets can be a crime in Orange if it “reasonably appears” that the person
18
using those items or using that clothing is living on the street.
19
20
21
114. Camping is also prohibited in parks under § 12.48.045. The same
definition as above is laid out again in § 12.48.015.
115.
The City of Orange has a history of giving Citations using the County
22
anti-camping ordinance after pushing residents into areas of the Santa Ana
23
Riverbed.
24
116.
Plaintiff Kathy Schuler was cited for violating the Orange County
25
ordinance against camping. At the time, she was in the portion of the Riverbed
26
that abuts Orange and that has concurrent jurisdiction with the Orange police. It
27
was the Orange Police Department who cited Ms. Schuler.
28
32
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 33 of 40 Page ID #:33
1
117.
After the Work Notice was issued in the Orange County Riverbed, the
2
Orange Police Department issued a notice of their own. The “Neighborhood
3
Advisory” stated that “All occupants currently living in the Riverbed will be
4
vacating the area.” It then states that “the City of Orange Police Department asks
5
if you see a suspicious person or activity to please call 714-744-7444 for non-
6
emergency matters.”
7
118.
On January 24, 2018, officers in the City of Orange ticketed Cameron
8
Ralston for blocking the sidewalk while he was stopped at a sidewalk near the
9
Riverbed. At the time, Mr. Ralston’s property was neatly packed and placed to the
10
side of the sidewalk leaving a clearance of three feet.
11
119. Over the past year, Mr. Ralston has been regularly threatened with
12
arrest and asked when he will leave the city by Orange Police Department. Mr.
13
Ralston has not been ticketed for camping but has been threatened with citation
14
under the City of Orange camping ordinance.
15
120. Mr. Ralston also left his property briefly to secure food after receiving
16
the obstruction ticket. When he returned, a notice had been posted near his
17
property indicating that the City of Orange considered it to be abandoned and he
18
had 24 hours to move it. City of Orange police officers had that same day seen
19
him with the property and seen that it was his. They did not have an objectively
20
reasonable belief that the property was abandoned.
21
121.
Plaintiff Shawn Carroll was also cited by Orange Police Department
22
officers when leaving the Riverbed, ostensibly for a bicycle offense. On
23
information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the City of Orange has instituted a
24
specific plan to stop homeless individuals as they leave the Riverbed and cite them
25
for any purported violation of even a minor violation of the law under a policy of
26
“zero tolerance for the homeless” aimed at forcing homeless individuals to leave
27
the City.
28
33
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 34 of 40 Page ID #:34
1
2
FACTS RELATING TO COSTA MESA
122.
Costa Mesa Municipal Code §11-304 makes it illegal for any person
3
to “camp, occupy camp facilities or use camp paraphernalia” in “(1) Any street or
4
alley; (2) Any public parking lot or public area, improved or unimproved; (3) Any
5
park.”
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
123.
The Municipal Code further defines “camp” as “to pitch or occupy
camp facilities; to use camp paraphernalia.” §11-302.
124. Camp Paraphernalia “includes, but is not limited to, tarpaulins, cots,
beds, sleeping bags, hammocks or non-city designated cooking facilities and
similar equipment.” §11-302.
125. Thus, under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, any homeless person
using a sleeping bag to stay warm is “camping” and is breaking the law.
126. None of the homeless shelters listed by Behavioral and Health
14
Services in the memorandum accompanying the notice of closure are located in
15
Costa Mesa. On information and belief, there are no homeless shelters available to
16
the general public in Costa Mesa.
17
127.
Plaintiff Melissa Fields was repeatedly cited for camping while
18
attempting to sleep on the sidewalk in Costa Mesa. Ms. Fields was not using a
19
tent, but was using a sleeping bag to stay warm. She had a backpack and a bicycle
20
with her as well.
21
24
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. §1983)
Art. 7, §17 California Constitution (Cruel and Unusual Punishment)
(Against All Defendants)
25
128.
22
23
26
27
28
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
129.
The acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, as described
herein, violate the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs to be free from actual or
34
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 35 of 40 Page ID #:35
1
threatened cruel and unusual punishment. By virtue of their status as homeless and
2
disabled, and the absence and insufficiency of shelter or housing in the region,
3
including the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and Costa Mesa, the Plaintiffs have no
4
way to comply with the laws Defendants have sought and continue to seek to
5
enforce against them.
6
7
8
9
130.
Orange County has told persons present in the Riverbed that they will
be cited for trespassing if they remain on County-controlled land in the area.
131.
The Anaheim Police Department has a policy and practice of citing
individuals who sleep in public places or exhibit other behaviors which Anaheim
10
considers “camping” under Anaheim Municipal Code 11.10, the Anaheim anti-
11
camping ordinance.
12
132.
The Orange Police Department has a policy and practice of citing
13
individuals who sleep in public places or exhibit other behaviors which Orange
14
considers “camping” under Orange Municipal Code §12.66.030 and under County
15
of Orange Ordinance §2-5-95. The Orange Police Department also has informed
16
its officers that they should have “zero tolerance” for the homeless.
17
133.
The Costa Mesa Police Department has a policy and practice of citing
18
individuals who sleep in public places or exhibit other behaviors which Costa
19
Mesa considers “camping” under Costa Mesa Municipal Code §11-302 to §11-304.
20
134. Plaintiffs further allege that it violates their substantive due process
21
rights to threaten them with citation and arrest for being present on County
22
property. The County has not provided any other County land on which Plaintiffs
23
can reside without trespassing. Instead, it intends to enforce County anti-camping
24
ordinances and expects Plaintiffs and others to move out into surrounding cities
25
such as Anaheim, Orange, and Costa Mesa, in which anti-camping ordinances
26
prevent them from lawfully residing without shelter and loitering laws prohibit
27
even their presence in these cities.
28
35
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 36 of 40 Page ID #:36
1
135.
The citation and threats of citation for behavior such as “the use of
2
public streets or public property for living accommodation or habitation purposes”
3
when there is inadequate shelter available violates the Eighth and Fourteenth
4
Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 7, §17 of the California
5
Constitution.
6
136.
Each Defendant has a custom, policy, and/or practice of encouraging
7
its officers to issue tickets to homeless persons for the unavoidable behavior of
8
sleeping or having property in public based on their unhoused status.
9
137. There is an actual controversy between Plaintiffs and the County of
10
Orange concerning the threat of citation if Plaintiffs remain on County property
11
near the Santa Ana River, whether or not it is within the area marked on the notice.
12
Plaintiffs have been informed by the County that the bike trail will now close at
13
6:00 PM and that persons can be cited for remaining within the bike trail area after
14
that time. Plaintiffs desire a judicial determination of their rights and duties and a
15
declaration as to Defendant County of Orange’s constitutional obligations.
16
17
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of First and Fourth Amendment; 42 U.S.C. 1983
(Against All Defendants)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
138.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
139.
Each of the Defendants has repeatedly and consistently stopped,
detained, interrogated and ordered individuals who appear to law enforcement to
be homeless to move along from public places where they have a right to be
pursuant to the First Amendment. The stops and subsequent detentions and
interrogations constitute an unlawful seizure as they were done without reasonable
suspicion or probable cause to believe that the individual had or was about to
commit a crime other than a purported violation of a law necessitated by their
status as homeless individuals plus the lack of available shelter.
36
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 37 of 40 Page ID #:37
1
140. Plaintiffs, as everyone else, have a First Amendment right to be
2
present in a public space, to “loiter” in a public space for no reason and to not be
3
excluded from that space by threat, intimidation or coercion because they are
4
homeless.
5
141. As a direct consequence of Defendants’ past and threatened future
6
actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer a violation of their
7
constitutional rights. Plaintiffs have suffered damages in the form of pain and
8
suffering as a result of Defendants’ policies, practices and customs.
9
12
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Right To Due Process Of Law; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Fourteenth Amendment
(Against All Defendants)
13
142. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the
10
11
14
15
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
143. The ordinance by the County which prohibits camping is
16
unconstitutionally vague. It does not adequately define “camp facilities” or “camp
17
paraphernalia”. It explicitly states that officers are not limited to the list provided
18
in those provisions.
19
144. The laws listed above used by the City of Anaheim violate the
20
Fourteenth Amendment because they are so vague as to be impossible to comply
21
with. The unlawful orders to the homeless to move along or be subject to arrest for
22
camping or loitering were directed toward intimidating plaintiffs.
23
24
25
145. The anti-camping ordinances listed above are unconstitutionally
vague.
146.
Anaheim Municipal Code §11.10 is extraordinarily vague in banning
26
the use or maintenance of “camp paraphernalia”. For example, it criminalizes the
27
having luggage in any public area. The simple possession of a suitcase would
28
appear to be a crime in Anaheim.
37
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 38 of 40 Page ID #:38
1
147.
Similarly, under Orange Municipal Code §12.66.020, using “extra
2
clothing” is a crime if the person using that clothing appears to be living outside.
3
The statute does not provide guidance as to what “extra clothing” is or what it
4
means to reasonably appear to be living outside.
5
148.
Costa Mesa lists various types of items and states that the use of such
6
items constitutes camping, but insists that its statute is “not limited to” the use of
7
such items. It is unclear whether the use of blankets or cardboard are included.
8
9
149. The loitering ordinances listed above are similarly unconstitutionally
vague.
10
150. The Anaheim loitering ordinance makes it a crime to “annoy or
11
molest” any person. But it is not clear what “annoy or molest” means. Such
12
provisions have been repeatedly found unconstitutional in the past.
13
151. The acts and omissions of Orange County, Anaheim, Orange, and
14
Costa Mesa, as described herein, violate the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs under
15
the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
16
18
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1
(Against All Defendants)
19
152. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the
17
20
21
proceeding paragraphs as through fully set forth hereat.
153. The Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, interferes by threats,
22
intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or
23
coercion, with the exercise and enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ rights as secured by the
24
First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
25
Constitution or laws of the United States, and of the rights secured by the
26
Constitution or laws of the state of California.
27
28
154. Defendants have engaged in concerted and repeated conduct to cite
and arrest Plaintiffs under unconstitutional ordinances, on their face and as applied,
38
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 39 of 40 Page ID #:39
1
and threatened to cite and arrest them repeatedly. Defendants engaged in coercive
2
and intimidating tactics by conducting unwarranted stops and collecting
3
information on Plaintiffs to push them out of Defendants’ respective jurisdictions.
4
5
6
7
8
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
155.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth hereat.
9
10
11
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as follows:
1.
For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent
12
injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendant Orange County from limiting the
13
hours or otherwise closing the Santa Ana Riverbed bike path for any purpose,
14
including maintenance, until an alternative location is provided for the 800-1200
15
homeless people currently there.
16
2.
For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent
17
injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendant Orange County from citing
18
individuals for trespassing or nuisance in the Santa Ana Riverbed under Penal
19
Code Sections 602 & 555, for nuisance based on the presence of themselves and/or
20
their property under Penal Code Sections 370 and 372 and absent an actual
21
obstruction of the Riverbed or the trail, and from enforcing County of Orange
22
Ordinance §2-5-95.
23
3.
For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent
24
injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendants City of Anaheim, City of Costa
25
Mesa, and City of Orange from citing or arresting individuals for violations of
26
camping laws, including Anaheim Municipal Code 11.10, Orange Municipal Code
27
§12.66.030, Costa Mesa Municipal Code §11-304, and/or County of Orange
28
Ordinance §2-5-95.
39
�Case 8:18-cv-00155 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 40 of 40 Page ID #:40
1
4.
For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent
2
injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendant City of Anaheim from enforcing its
3
loitering ordinance, §7.28.010.
4
5.
For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent
5
injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendants City of Anaheim, City of Costa
6
Mesa, and City of Orange from stopping and detaining homeless individuals
7
without probable cause and from threatening homeless persons with tickets or
8
citations if they continue to be present in public space in that city.
9
6.
For a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s policies, practices and
10
conduct as alleged herein violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States and
11
California constitutions and the laws of California;
12
13
7.
For damages to the individual plaintiffs in an amount to be determined
according to proof based on their federal claims only;
14
8.
For costs of suit and attorney fees as provided by law;
15
9.
For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
16
17
18
19
Dated: January 29, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
ELDER LAW & DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN
20
21
22
/s/ Catherine Sweetser
By: CATHERINE SWEETSER
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
23
24
25
26
27
28
40
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Homeless Orange County Crisis (HOCC)
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018 onwards -
Description
An account of the resource
The Homeless Orange County Collection, HOCC, is a curated set of news, blog posts, personal stories, lawsuits, research, and narratives about the homelessness crisis in the OC, beginning with the filing of Case 8:18-cv-00155 filed 01/29/2018 following the Santa Ana River evictions.
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Orange County - California - United States of America
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Anita Coleman
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
<a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/omeka-net/39333/archive/files/616f2a835ba2ab1dde87bfdcca8eed5e.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAI3ATG3OSQLO5HGKA&Expires=1528168453&Signature=pr1ZYDGBrCBERxaufCrE6rFw6Sk%3D" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Orange County Catholic Worker v. Orange County, Case 8:18-cv- 000155, Filed 01/29/18</a>
Subject
The topic of the resource
Emergency Shelters (aka Emergency Housing) (Type of Homeless Housing)
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
January 29, 2018
Description
An account of the resource
Lawsuit filed by the Elder Law and Disability Rights Center in the US District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. 40 pages.
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Orange County -- United States