Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jill H. Talley on May 6 issued her final ruling on the complaint Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho filed against the City of Sacramento regarding its unhoused population.
You can read the final ruling here: Final Order_City’s Demurrer.5.6.2024
In response to the final ruling, Sacramento City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood issued the following statement:
“It has been clear from day one that the DA’s case was flawed from a legal perspective, and we are pleased the Court has affirmed this by largely rejecting his arguments in its final ruling. While the DA may attempt to amend his complaint, the City is imploring him to do the right thing and bring this case to an end. The DA’s efforts have resulted in nothing more than a waste of taxpayer money and a drain on City, County and Court resources. What this case has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt is that playing politics with homelessness helps no one. Right now, both the City and County of Sacramento need to be focused on providing outreach and support to unsheltered residents. It is time for the DA to finally abandon this exercise and start contributing to the ongoing work to create meaningful and lasting solutions to the homelessness crisis. As I have stated before, collaboration – not provocation – is the right path to success.”
BACKGROUND
Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho in September 2023 brought an action against the City of Sacramento regarding its unhoused population. The complaint was amended in December. The DA alleged City officials acted “to prevent and thwart the lawful abatement of nuisances,” such as blocked sidewalks, dangerous campfires and property damage caused by people experiencing homelessness.
The DA’s First Amended Complaint asserts three causes of action against the City:
- The first cause of action for public nuisance alleged that “the City’s refusal to maintain the public property under its control and failure to enforce laws and ordinances thereon facilitates and perpetuates a public nuisance.”
- The second cause of action for nuisance per se alleged the City is violating certain Water Code Sections “by allowing the continual disposal of waste onto and from City property to waters of the State.”
- The third cause of action was brought pursuant to a Fish and Game Code section and also sought injunctive relief to prevent the unhoused from polluting waterways.
In response to the First Amended Complaint, the City filed a demurrer, challenging the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted against it.
The City challenged the DA’s complaint on three grounds. First, the City argued that the DA’s claims were barred by immunities within the Government Claims Act. Second, it argued that the DA did not state sufficient facts to support any of the causes of action. Third, the City argued that DA’s claims are barred by a separation of powers defense, which asserts that the court lacks power to interfere with legislative actions at a local or state level.
In her final ruling, Judge Talley sustained the City’s demurrer, agreeing the separation of powers defense precluded all causes of action in the DA’s First Amended Complaint. Judge Talley also ruled the DA’s first and second causes of action for nuisance failed as a matter of law.
The DA now has 30 days to file a second amended complaint, should he so choose.