A federal judge has denied Los Angeles County's motion to dismiss a lawsuit that alleges it mismanaged the homelessness crisis and may have even helped create it.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter issued the order on May 11, stating that the plaintiffs in LA Alliance for Human Rights, et al., v. City of Los Angeles et al had carried their burden of establishing standing.
“The way the judge has expressed himself throughout this process, it wasn't surprising that he denied the motion to dismiss,” said Daniel Conway, policy adviser for the LA Alliance for Human Rights. “It’s a positive step.”
As previously reported in the Southern California Record, the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights sued the city and county a year ago in the Central District of California federal court alleging that negligence, a violation of due process, and equal rights have caused businesses to suffer and property values to drop.
“Essentially what the county is saying is we're doing our job and this is good enough but I think most Angelenos, whether you're unhoused or housed would disagree,” Conway told the Southern California Record.
Judge Carter rejected the county’s argument based on the state-created danger doctrine.
“Considering the extensive evidence that Defendant has mismanaged Los Angeles’ homelessness crisis and created a system plagued by systemic racism that has led to disproportionate danger for communities of color, the Court cannot accept Defendant’s argument that the County has not played a significant role in creating this crisis,” he ruled.
The state-created danger legal doctrine states that the person who creates a dangerous circumstance can be held liable for injuries or deaths that result from it.
“The county is uniquely at fault here in that they are the ones responsible for providing social and mental health services and the county has been woefully underperforming for the people who need it the most,” Conway said. “Just look at the fact that county mental health services have a very nine-to-five appointment-only approach, which is difficult on the streets when you’re having a sudden mental health crisis.”
The judge, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, further rejected the county’s immunity claims under California Government Code section 820.2 and Government Code section 815.2.
“That discretionary immunity is inapplicable to claims seeking only equitable and injunctive relief as is the case here,” Judge Carter opined. “Thus, the County’s claims of immunity under 820.2 and 815.2 are inapplicable to the present California tort causes of action.”
Judge Carter is scheduled to preside over two more hearings this week on May 26 and 27. The May 26 hearing will review progress on 6,700 new beds for people camping near freeways and people experiencing homelessness who are vulnerable to COVID while the hearing on May 27 is a status conference.
“Many unhoused people talk about how they have no faith in the system because all they ever get is a spot on a waiting list,” Conway added. “That's all they are being offered and what Judge Carter has signaled is that he hasn’t changed his mind in terms of the culpability of the city and county on these issues.”