Amicus Curiae Brief — City of Grants Pass, Oregon, Petitioner v. Gloria Johnson, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated

No. 23-175

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

_________

CITY OF GRANTS PASS OREGON,

Petitioner,

v.

GLORIA JOHNSON, ET AL., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to

the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

_________

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE

ON BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES CATHOLIC

WORKER, CANGRESS, VENICE JUSTICE

COMMITTEE AND INNER CITY LAW CENTER

IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

_________

CAROL A. SOBEL *

2632 Wilshire Blvd, #552

Santa Monica, CA 90403

carolsobellaw@gmail.com

t. (310) 393 3055

MARK ROSENBAUM

Public Counsel

610 S. Ardmore Ave

Los Angeles, CA 90005

mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org

t. (213) 385 2977

PAUL L. HOFFMAN

MELANIE PARTOW

UC Irvine School of Law

Civil Rights litigation Clinic

P.O. Box 5479

Irvine, CA 92616

hoffpaul@aol.com

melaniepartow@gmail.com

t. (310) 399 7040

*Counsel of Record

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................. iii

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE................... 1

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................. 3

ARGUMENT...................................................... 6

I. WITH THE LARGEST UNSHELTERED

POPULATION IN THE NATION, LOS

ANGELES’ EXPERIENCE

DEMONSTRATES WHY THE

DECISION BELOW IS CORRECT

THAT CRIMINALIZATION VIOLATES

THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT .................... 6

A. The Numbers of Unhoused Persons in

Los Angeles ............................................. 6

B. Los Angeles’ Repeated Campaigns

Over

Decades

to

Criminalize

Unsheltered Individuals Have Failed

to Change the Dynamics ........................ 8

C. The Failure to Address the Crisis in

Shelter and Housing in Los Angeles...... 11

D. The Failure of LAMC 41.18 to Reduce

Homelessness .......................................... 18

E. The City Has Allowed Low-Income

Housing to Be Destroyed While It

Claimed to Pursue Other Options for

Addressing Homelessness ...................... 20

II. CRIMINALIZING BASIC AND

ESSENTIAL LIFE ACTIVITIES FOR

UNSHELTERED INDIVIDUALS WHO

HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LIVE IN

PUBLIC SPACES SERVES NO

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

LEGITIMATE PENOLOGICAL

PURPOSE .................................................... 23

A. The Availability of a “Necessity

Defense” Does Not Cure the Eighth

Amendment Violation............................. 24

B. The

Adverse

Consequences

of

Criminalization Support the Holding

that the Eighth Amendment is

Violated Here .......................................... 27

Conclusion ............................................................. 31

Page

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Page(s)

Grants Pass v. Johnson, 72 F.4th 868 (9th

Cir. 2023)................................................... 5

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, (1976) ....... 24

In re Eichorn 69 Cal. App. 4th 382, 388

(1988)......................................................... 25, 26

Jerome Wiggins, et al. v. Board of

Directors

of

the

Community

Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los

Angeles, et al., LASC Case No.

BC277539 .................................................. 22

Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d

1118, 1138 (9th Cir. 2004)., vacated as

moot following settlement, 505 F.3d

1006 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................... 4, 9, 11,

12, 13, 14, 16, 23, 25, 27

Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 2004 WL

5469606 (C.A.9) (Appellants' Opening

Brief).......................................................... 12, 13

People v. Garziano, 230 Cal. App. 3d 241,

243 (1991) .................................................. 25

People v. Pepper 41 Cal. App. 4th 1029,

(1996)......................................................... 26, 27

State v. Barrett, 302 Or. App. 23, 44–45

(2020)......................................................... 26

Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069,

1087-1088 (1995)....................................... 26

iv

Statutes

California Government Code § 65302......... 16

California Vehicle Code §21956 .................. 10

Los Angeles Municipal Code §41.18(d) ....... 9, 11, 13,

14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 25, 29

Los Angeles Coucil District 15 had been

offered shelter. LA Community Action

Network, Separate and Unequal, graph

(last

accessed

Mar.

1,

2024)

https://cangress.org/publications/............. 18

Other Authorities

Bill Boyarsky, Bradley Calls for Halt to

Razing of Skid Row Hotels, L.A. Times,

(July

22,

1987)

https://www.latimes.com/archives/laxpm-1987-07-22-me-3367 -story.html ..... 21

Brief for City of Los Angeles as Amici

Curiae in Supporting Neither Party,

City of Grants Pass Oregon v. Gloria

Johnson, et al. (No. 23-175) ...................... 4

City of Los Angeles, 2021-2029 Housing

Element, Chapter 1. Housing Needs

Assessment,

(Nov.

2021)

https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/b

de50bc0-5f1f-4e88-a5cf-

v

06a12e1d8078/Chapter_1__Housing_Needs_Assessment_(Adopte

d).pdf.......................................................... 5

Frederick Muir, Bradley Proposes Skid

Row Hotel Demolition Ban, L.A. Times,

(Mar.10,

1989)

https://www.latimes.com/archives/laxpm-1989-03-10-me-1106 -story.html ..... 21

Gale Holland, Huge Increase in Arrests of

Homeless in L.A.-But mostly for minor

offenses, L.A. Times (Feb. 4, 2018),

https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/l

a-me-homeless-arrests-20180204story.htm ................................................... 11

Gary Blasi & the UCLA Sch. of Law Fact

Investigation Clinic Policing Our Way

Out of Homelessness?: The First Year of

the Safer Cities Initiative on Skid Row,

(2009)......................................................... 10

Institute for the Study of Homelessness

and Poverty, “Who is Homeless in Los

Angeles?” 3 (2000) ..................................... 12

Jennifer

Paluch,

Joseph

Herrera,

Homeless Populations Are Rising

around California, Public Policy

Institute of California Blog, (Feb. 21,

2023) .......................................................... 3

vi

Kenneth Mejia, Los Angeles City

Controller, 41.18 Arrests Map (Jan

2012

May

2023),

(2023)

https://controller.lacity.gov/landings/41

18 ............................................................... 9

Kirsten Moore Sheely, et al., The Making of

a Crisis:A History of Homelessness in Los

Angeles, University of California, Los

Angeles, Luskin Center for History and

Policy,

p.

53

(Jan.

2021)

https://luskincenter.history.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/sites/66/2021/01/LCHPThe-Making-of-A-Crisis-Report.pdf.........9

LA Community Action Network, Separate and

Unequal, Mar. 1, 2024

https://cangress.org/publications/...........18

Lindsey Horvath, @LindseyPHorvath,

Twitter (Mar. 4, 2024) (19) Lindsey P.

Horvath on X: https://t.co/MqglkJEriV"

/ X (twitter.com) ........................................ 19

Los Angeles Dept of City Planning, 20132021 Housing Element,

CPC-20131318-GPA, (Adopted Dec. 3

2013)

https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/b

de50bc0-5f1f-4e88-a5cf06a12e1d8078/Chapter_1_-

vii

_Housing_Needs_Assessment_(Adopte

d).pdf.......................................................... 17

Los

Angeles

Homeless

Services

Authority, 2023 Greater Los Angeles

Homeless Count - City of Los Angeles,

CITY OF LA HC23 DATA SUMMARY,

https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=7

680-city-of-la-hc23-data-summary ........... 7

Melissa Hernandez, L.A. to reopen

Section 8 housing waiting list for first

time in five years. Here’s what you need

to know, L.A. Times, (Sept. 22, 2022)

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor

y/2022-09-22/section-8-housingvoucher-waiting-list-los-angeles-howto-apply...................................................... 16

Nick Gerda, Hidden City Report Finds LA

Council’s Signature Anti-Encampment

Law Is Failing, LAIST, (Mar. 2, 2024) .... 18, 28

Paul Rubenstein, Re: Los Angeles Mun.

Code Section 41.18 Effectiveness Report

(21-0329-S4),

Nov.

28,

2023

https://s3.documentcloud.org/document

s/24453676/4118-efficacy-summaryreport.pdf................................................... 19

Penelope McMillan and Roxane Arnol,

Bradley Proposes Temporary Camp for

viii

L.A.’s Homeless, L.A. Times, (March 5,

1987)

https://www.latimes.com/archives/laxpm-1987-06-04-me-4837-story.html ....... 20

Skid Row History project by UCLA

Luskin Social Welfare Department

(http://luskin.ucla.edu/social-welfare) ...... 20

Teresa Wiltz, Without ID, Homeless

Trapped in Vicious Cycle, Stateline,

(May

15,

2017)

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researchandanalysis/blogs/stateline/2017/05/15/wit

hout-id-homeless-trapped-in-viciouscycle. .......................................................... 30

U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts Grants

Pass city, Oregon; Josephine County,

Oregon (last visited Mar. 1, 2023)

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/

table/grantspasscityoregon,josephineco

untyoregon,US/PST045222 ...................... 7

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Fact Sheet: 2023 Annual

Homelessness Assessment Report Key

Findings from the Point-in-Time Counts

(December 1, 2023) available at:

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/doc

ix

uments/Fact_Sheet_Summarized_Findi

ngs.pdf ....................................................... 6

U.S. Depart. of Housing and Urban Dev,

PIT and HIC Data since 2007, HUD

Exchange (last viewed Mar. 1, 2024)

https//www.hudexchange.info/resource/

3031/pit-and-hic-data-since 2007 ............. 17

University of California, San Francisco,

Benioff Homelessness and Housing

Initiative:

Toward

a

New

Understanding California Statewide

Study

of

People

Experiencing

Homelessness, Executive Summary,

(Jun. 2023) ................................................ 3

1

INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE 1

Amicus CANGRESS, known as Los Angeles

Community Action Network (LA CAN), is a non-profit

organization in Los Angeles’ Skid Row for 25 years.

Over its history, CANGRESS has advocated for civil

rights for marginally housed and unhoused individuals and against criminalization of poverty. Originally

focused on Downtown Los Angeles and Skid Row,

CANGRESS has expanded its work into South Central Los Angeles, historically a majority Black community. For 20 years, amicus has conducted pro bono legal clinics for persons cited for quality-of-life crimes.

Amicus The Los Angeles Catholic Worker

(LACW) is part of the international Catholic Worker

movement, founded in 1933 by Dorothy Day and Peter

Maurin in New York City during the Great Depression. Its primary focus is “to comfort the afflicted and

afflict the comfortable,” and enflesh Jesus’ teachings,

specifically, as recorded in Matthew 25:31-46, which

are referred to as the Corporal Works of Mercy: feed

the hungry; give water to the thirsty; clothe the naked; shelter the unsheltered; visit the sick and imprisoned; bury the dead; give alms to the poor. In 1970

———————————

1 Pursuant to Rule 37.6, Amicus Curiae affirms that no counsel

for any party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the

preparation or submission of this brief. No person other than

counsel for Amicus Curiae made a monetary contribution to its

preparation or submission.

2

the LACW founded a soup kitchen, known as the Hippie Kitchen, and service center that provides toiletries, shopping carts, mail service and other assistance

for the unhoused in Skid Row. LACW is an active

voice opposing punitive policies toward the poor.

Amicus Venice Justice Committee (“VJC”) is an

unincorporated association that fights civil and human rights violations targeting unsheltered persons,

mostly in the Venice area of Los Angeles. Venice has

the second largest unsheltered population in the City

after Skid Row. VJC’s work primarily focuses on police interactions with the unhoused community, including free monthly legal clinics for unsheltered persons cited for “quality of life” crimes. VJC also coordinates special legal intake clinics following significant

police action directed at the unhoused community.

Amicus Inner City Law Center ("ICLC") is a nonprofit poverty law firm located in Skid Row. Born inside a rusty construction trailer behind the Catholic

Worker soup kitchen in 1980, ICLC has always been

guided by the fundamental principle that every person should be treated with dignity and respect. Today,

ICLC has over 120 staff members who fight for lowincome tenants, working poor families, veterans, people living with HIV/AIDS, immigrants, and people

who are living with disabilities or experiencing homelessness. ICLC's mission is to ensure decent, safe, and

fully habitable housing for the most vulnerable individuals and families residing in Los Angeles.

3

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

“California is home to 12% of the nation’s population, 30% of the nation’s homeless population, and

half the nation’s unsheltered population.” 2 On any

given night, California has approximately 30 percent

of all persons without a home of their own in the

United States, including half of those who are unsheltered. 3 Both the City and County of Los Angeles filed

amicus briefs in this matter representing that they

are neutrals. But the facts regarding California’s unsheltered population – and the complicity of the City

and County in exacerbating this situation - leave no

room for neutrality on the question now before the

Court.

As the Ninth Circuit held two decades ago in

reviewing the City of Los Angeles’ policies criminalizing unsheltered individuals who had no choice but to

———————————

2 University of California, San Francisco, Benioff Homelessness

and Housing Initiative, Toward a New Understanding California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness, Executive Summary, (Jun. 2023)

CASPEH_Executive_Summary_62023.pdf (ucsf.edu)

https://live-homelessness.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/2023-06/CASPEH_Executive_Summary_62023.pdf

3 Jennifer Paluch, Joseph Herrera, Homeless Populations Are

Rising around California, Public Policy Institute of California

Blog, (Feb. 21, 2023) https://www.ppic.org/blog/homeless-populations-are-rising-around-california/

4

live in public spaces, “[t]he Eighth Amendment prohibits … punishing involuntary sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks that is an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter

in the City of Los Angeles.” Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1138 (9th Cir. 2004)., vacated as

moot following settlement, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir.

2007).

While Los Angeles agrees that punishing unhoused individuals for sleeping, sitting, and generally

living in public spaces violates the Eighth Amendment, they nonetheless ask the Court to weigh a decision that grants them broader latitude to “regulate”

public spaces by making it a crime for the largest unsheltered population in the nation to live in most public spaces when there is no available shelter or housing. Although the City asserts that it needs to be able

to “enforce partial solutions” while it “pursues the goal

of providing enough housing and shelter for all,” 4 the

City’s track record in this area is largely one of failure. 5

———————————

4 Brief for City of Los Angeles as Amici Curiae in Supporting

Neither Party, City of Grants Pass Oregon v. Gloria Johnson, et

al. (No. 23-175)

5 According to the most current General Plan for the City of Los

Angeles for 2022-2029, the Point in Time Count documents an

increase from 25,686 people experiencing homelessness in 2015

to 41,920 by 2020, an increase of more than 60 percent in just

five years. See City of Los Angeles, 2021-2029 Housing Element, Chapter 1. Housing Needs Assessment, (Nov. 2021)

5

So, it begs the question: if Los Angeles officials

agree that broad criminal enforcement violates the

Eighth Amendment as applied to unsheltered individuals, how many more decades should they be allowed

to criminalize basic life activities of unsheltered persons when their record on “pursuing the goal of

providing housing and shelter for all” over decades is

deplorable and has exacerbated, if not in significant

part created, the problems Los Angeles faces now and

has faced for years.

The Ninth Circuit was correct in Grants Pass v.

Johnson, 72 F.4th 868 (9th Cir. 2023), that criminalizing basic life activities conducted in public places

when an individual lacks shelter violates the Eighth

Amendment. The dire circumstances for unhoused

persons in Los Angeles, the largest unsheltered population in the nation, demonstrate why the decision below was correct, necessary and should be affirmed by

the Court.

———————————

https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/bde50bc0-5f1f-4e88-a5cf06a12e1d8078/Chapter_1_-_Housing_Needs_Assessment_(Adopted).pdf :Chap.1-27 and Chart 1.8 (“Homeless Persons”). While the City noted that the sheltered population rose

in 2020, attributing the increase to the opening of new shelters

and increased temporary housing; the City also noted that

nearly 70% of the City’s unhoused population still remains unsheltered. Id. at Chap.1-27.

6

ARGUMENT

I. WITH THE LARGEST UNSHELTERED

POPULATION IN THE NATION, LOS

ANGELES’ EXPERIENCE DEMONSTRATES

WHY THE DECISION BELOW IS CORRECT

THAT CRIMINALIZATION VIOLATES THE

EIGHTH AMENDMENT

A. The Numbers of Unhoused Persons in Los

Angeles

In the most recent numbers from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for

the January 2023 Point-in-Time Count (“PIT”),

653,104 people were documented as experiencing

homelessness across the nation.6 In 2023, HUD calculated that the total in all categories it tracked of

people experiencing homelessness rose 13 percent

since 2007, when HUD first began collecting annual

Point-in-Time data.7 Id. From 2022 to 2023, increases

were highest among unsheltered people, rising by 20

percent or 39,598 people nationally. Id. More than 20

percent of that increase resulted from a rise in unsheltered persons in Los Angeles City and County.

———————————

6 See, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Fact Sheet: 2023 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report Key

Findings from the Point-in-Time Counts (Dec. 1, 2023)

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/Fact_Sheet_Su

mmarized_Findings.pdf

7 Id.

7

Los Angeles has long been the epicenter of the

unsheltered population in the United States. Approximately 20 percent of the total number of people who

experienced homelessness last year were in Los Angeles. In the 2023 PIT Count, Los Angeles County had

a nine percent increase in people experiencing homelessness for a total of approximately 75,000 individuals. 8 That number reflects a 10 percent increase in

the City of Los Angeles, for an estimated total of approximately 46,000 people.9

While the number of people without nightly

shelter has increased significantly each year,

———————————

8 The total population of petitioner Grants Pass is half of the

2023 unsheltered population of Los Angeles City and County.

See, U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts Grants Pass city, Oregon;

Josephine County, Oregon (last visited Mar. 1, 2023)

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/grantspasscityoregon,josephinecountyoregon,US/PST045222

9 While the overall increase from 2022 to 2023 was 10 percent,

some categories showed much greater increases, including seniors and those experiencing domestic violence or intimate partner violence. For seniors, the year-over-year increase ranged

from 52% for those aged 62-64, 37% for those aged 65-69 and 28%

for those in the age group 70-79. The number of domestic violence victims who became unhoused increased by 54% from 2022

to 2023. Equally concerning is the rise in the number of unsheltered veterans, increasing 42% from 2022 to 2023, with only one

third of the total number being sheltered. See, Los Angeles

Homeless Services Authority, 2023 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count - City of Los Angeles, CITY OF LA HC23 DATA

SUMMARY, https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=7680-city-ofla-hc23-data-summary. Id.

8

available shelter, interim and long-term housing has

fallen further and further behind and in most years

increased only minimally, if at all. In short, with more

than 75,000 individuals in Los Angeles City and

County who lack a fixed place to sleep indoors at night

and grossly inadequate public resources to assist

them with shelter, and with a history of government

indifference and inaction, criminalizing the necessity

of people to live in public areas violates the Eighth

Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment for indigent, unhoused persons.

B. Los Angeles’ Repeated Campaigns Over

Decades to Criminalize Unsheltered Individuals Have Failed to Change the Dynamics

Though study after study has … shown that

policing the post-1970s crisis of homelessness has cost significantly more than supportive-housing approaches, the former

strategy remains the most ubiquitous one. []

Reliance on law enforcement and emergency

room visits produces a higher overall cost

and by saddling people with criminal records

and fees, perpetuates the cycle of poverty.10

———————————

10 Kirsten Moore Sheely, et al., The Making of a Crisis: A History

of Homelessness in Los Angeles, University of California, Los Angeles, Luskin Center for History and Policy, p. 53 (Jan. 2021) (edits supplied): https://luskincenter.history.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/66/2021/01/LCHP-The-Making-of-A-Crisis-Report.pdf

9

According to a recent study published by the

Los Angeles City Controller, between 2012 and 2022,

the Los Angeles Police Department arrested more

than 36,000 unsheltered individuals for violations of

LAMC 41.18(d).11 Half of these arrests were in the

Skid Row area and 84 percent were charged as misdemeanors, even though law enforcement had the option

to charge the violations as infractions. Id. The charging decision is significant because even though infractions carry a fine of up to $2,500, an impossible

amount for a homeless person, the penalty for a misdemeanor violation of the same statute is even more

harsh: it may be a fine of the same amount plus incarceration for up to six months. Id.12

In 2006, shortly after the City’s enforcement of

LAMC §41.18(d) was enjoined by the Ninth Circuit in

Jones, newly appointed Police Chief Bratton initiated

the “Safer Cities Initiative,” based on the “broken windows” theory of policing developed by George Kelling

of the Manhattan Institute: i.e., arrest people for minor offenses and it will result in fewer serious crimes.

Under this approach, unhoused people on Skid Row

were arrested for such minor offenses as littering,

———————————

11 Kenneth Mejia, Los Angeles City Controller, 41.18 Arrests

Map (Jan 2012 - May 2023), (2023) https://controller.lacity.gov/landings/4118

12 For a comprehensive history of the government response to

homelessness in Los Angeles, see Sheely, supra, note 9.

10

being a pedestrian in a roadway, jaywalking and similar crimes. Pursuant to the California Penal Code,

many of these “crimes” were not crimes at all. 13

The ”Safer Cities Initiative” was a failure. In

its first year, the LAPD arrested 9,000 people and issued approximately 12,000 citations, mostly for pedestrian violations. Most of these citations were ultimately dismissed because, among other reasons, the

facts did not support the charges. According to a report prepared by Prof. Gary Blasi and the UCLA

School of Law Fact Investigation Clinic, the Safer Cities Initiative was planned as a two-prong approach:

arrests and services. The second prong, the “Streets

or Services” (SOS) program, was even more of a failure. In the same time frame that the LAPD made

7,428 arrests under the Safer Cities Initiative, only 34

people completed the companion SOS program. 14

According to an analysis by the Los Angeles

Times, in 2016, a decade after the massive arrests in

the Safer Cities Initiative failed to reduce homelessness in any manner, LAPD officers arrested 14,000

homeless people in the city on minor offenses, a 31%

———————————

13 For example, California Vehicle Code §21956 includes an express exemption for pedestrians walking in roadways in a business district. So all of those tickets were invalid.

14 Gary Blasi & the UCLA Sch. of Law Fact Investigation Clinic

Policing Our Way Out of Homelessness?: The First Year of the

Safer Cities Initiative on Skid Row, 7 (2009)

11

increase from 2011.15 At the same time, LAPD arrests in the City overall dropped 15%. Id. An earlier

analysis by the Times in 2011 found 1 in 10 arrests

citywide were of homeless people. By 2016, it was 1

in 6, with most of the arrests for violations of “qualityof-life” laws. Id. The most common “crime” in 2016

was failure appear in court on a previously issued citation. Id. Despite this massive number of arrests,

the number of people without fixed and regular

nightly housing, let alone shelter, grew dramatically.

C. The Failure to Address the Crisis in Shelter and Housing in Los Angeles

In Jones, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit enjoined Los Angeles Municipal Code

§41.18(d), a city ordinance that made it a crime to sit,

lie or sleep on any public street, sidewalk or other public way, without exception, and imposed fines and incarceration on violators. The Circuit enjoined the enforcement of the Los Angeles ordinance based on “substantial and undisputed evidence that the number of

homeless persons in the city far exceeded the number

of available shelter beds at all times,” there are more

unhoused people in Los Angeles than indoor places for

them to sleep. 444 F.3d at 1132.

———————————

15 Gale Holland, Huge Increase in Arrests of Homeless in L.A.But mostly for minor offenses, L.A. Times (Feb. 4, 2018),

https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-homeless-arrests20180204-story.html

12

Twenty years ago, when the Ninth Circuit decided Jones, there were nearly 50,000 more people

without shelter in the region than available beds in

Los Angeles. Id., at 1122 (citing Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, Los Angeles Continuum of

Care, Ex. 1 Narrative, at 2-14 (2001); id. at 1129 fn.

4. 16 Then, as now, the causes of homelessness were

the same: mental illness, substance abuse, domestic

violence, low-paying jobs and most significantly, the

chronic lack of affordable housing.” 444 F.3d at 1123,

citing Institute for the Study of Homelessness and

Poverty, “Who is Homeless in Los Angeles?” 3 (2000)

(emphasis supplied).

Because sitting, lying and sleeping are unavoidable human acts, and finding that the plaintiffs in

Jones were involuntarily without daytime or

nighttime shelter based on a record containing “several reports directly authored or commissioned by

City agencies or task forces,” 17 the Ninth Circuit held

that the Los Angeles ordinance violated the federal

Constitution’s Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and

unusual punishment. 444 F.3d at 1138.

Notably, the Plaintiffs in Jones did not contend

that §41.18(d) was facially invalid. Rather, they argued that so long as the number of unsheltered

———————————

16 See also Appellants’ Opening Brief, Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 2004 WL 5469606 (C.A.9) (Appellate Brief)

17 Jones, 444 F.3d at 1130 fn.4.

13

individuals in the City substantially exceeded the

available shelter beds, enforcement of §41.18(d)

against the against the City’s unhoused population

during nighttime hours effectively criminalized homelessness – and, thus, violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 18

The Circuit agreed that the evidence supporting Plaintiffs’ inability to comply with the law was

both “substantial and undisputed.” 444 F.3d at 1132.

Against the mountain of evidence submitted by the

Jones plaintiffs, the City of Los Angeles argued that

the Court should not enjoin §41.18(d) because anyone

arrested for violating the ordinance could simply raise

a necessity defense in criminal proceedings and they

would definitely prevail because of the enormous lack

of available shelter in the City.

The Ninth Circuit correctly rejected the City’s

request to place the burden on indigent and unsheltered persons to navigate the criminal system when

the City conceded that the criminal charges were unsupportable. The Circuit found that the availability

of a necessity defense was a “false promise” because

homeless persons were unlikely to have the capability

to fight the criminal charges. 444 F.3d at 1131. Additionally, the prospect of a necessity defense was

found inadequate because the “preconviction” harms

———————————

18Appellants Opening Brief: Jones, WL 5469606, at *16.

14

unsheltered individuals would suffer justified enjoining enforcement. Id.

Simply because there was no other place for

them to sleep, those experiencing homelessness would

be: “arrested, imprisoned, and/or prosecuted, as well

as suffer the loss of their personal property, for involuntarily violating section 41.18(d). These preconviction harms, some of which occur immediately upon citation or arrest, … are not salved by the potential

availability of a necessity defense. The loss of Appellants’ possessions when they are arrested and held in

custody is particularly injurious because they have so

few resources and may find that everything they own

has disappeared by the time they return to the street.”

444 F.3d at 1131 (edits and emphasis supplied).

A key piece of evidence in Jones was a report

the United States Conference of Mayors issued: “A

Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in Americas Cities 2002: A 25-city Survey December 2002.”

The report was based on statistical information provided by mayors' offices from each of the 25 cities included in the 2002 report. For the first time in 2002,

Los Angeles was among the 25 cities responding to the

survey. The full 2002 report is now available at

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED471937.pdf.

Then-Los Angeles Mayor Hahn’s office reported

a ten-percent increase from the prior year in the need

for emergency shelter in 2001 and identified the primary causes of increased homelessness in the City as

15

the lack of affordable housing, mental illness, substance abuse, and poverty, as well as the lack of necessary services to respond to mental illness and substance abuse.

In 2001, the City of Los Angeles reported 1,658

shelter beds for unhoused individuals, with a small

additional number of beds for families. U.S. Conf. of

Mayors Report 2002 at p. 99. As the U.S. Conference

of Mayor’s Report described the situation in Los Angeles in 2002, “[t]he gap between the homeless population needing a shelter bed and the inventory of shelter beds is severely large. The deficiency in the inventory causes shelters to turn away homeless persons.”

U.S. Conf. of Mayors Report 2002 at p. 80.

The City fared no better when it came to providing units at public housing or Section 8 vouchers. According to the data Los Angeles provided for the 2002

Mayors Report, the Housing Authority's waitlist for

public housing communities increased more than 25

percent and the applications for Section 8 vouchers for

rent increased by over 2,000 families each month. Id.

at p. 99. The wait time in 2002 for public housing and

Section 8 vouchers was approximately three years. 19

———————————

19 The success of obtaining a Section 8 voucher and then finding a landlord who will accept it have decreased in Los Angeles.

In the last lottery, City housing officials expected about 365,000

people would apply for 30,000 available vouchers. See Melissa

Hernandez, L.A. to reopen Section 8 housing waiting list for first

time in five years. Here’s what you need to know, L.A. Times,

(Sept. 22, 2022) https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-

16

Id. at 101. Los Angeles met only eight percent of the

need for this “affordable” housing. Id. at 105. Of the

25 cities surveyed in the 2002 report, only Miami had

longer wait times. Id. at 101.

Little has changed in the last two decades. Los

Angeles still has an enormous shortfall of shelter beds

and interim housing options that is approximately

four times the documented need for shelter. Los Angeles Municipal Code §41.18(d), as currently codified

and enforced, has been a failure at achieving its penological purpose for the same reason that the original

version of the law was held unconstitutional in Jones.

While the law criminalizes the basic necessity to sleep

in public for people without access to a bed, it does little to reduce the unsheltered population as the endless cycle of streets to jails continues unabated.

The City has long recognized both the acute

need for affordable housing and the City’s immense

failure to meet this need. In the 2013-2021 General

Plan for Los Angeles,20 submitted to the State of

———————————

09-22/section-8-housing-voucher-waiting-list-los-angeles-howto-apply

20 Pursuant to California Government Code § 65302, the State

of California requires every city and county government entity to

submit a General Plan to the state’s Housing and Community

Development Department (“HCD”) for approval every eight

years, with periodic progress updates. As part of the Plan, cities

and counties must address how they intend to provide for several

specific categories, including the needs of seniors, people with

disabilities, low-income individuals, and unhoused persons. If

17

California for approval, the City explicitly acknowledged the failure to create sufficient housing to meet

expected needs for unhoused individuals.

In the 2013 General Plan, the City estimated

that it needed more than 10,000 units a year to meet

projected growth; but reported that the City had only

produced about 6,000 units a year since 2006, for a

shortfall of approximately 32,000 units between 2006

and 2013.21 In the category of affordable units for

moderate or lower-income households, the City reported it produced an average of 1,100 units annually

since 2006.22 At the same time, the percentage of unsheltered individuals in the City increased by several

thousands of people each year. 23

———————————

the Plan is not approved by the State, no development permits

may issue in the City or County until deficiencies are corrected.

21 Los Angeles Department of City Planning, 2013-2021 Housing

Element,

CPC-2013-1318-GPA, (Adopted Dec. 3

2013)

https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/bde50bc0-5f1f-4e88-a5cf06a12e1d8078/Chapter_1_-_Housing_Needs_Assessment_(Adopted).pdf

22 Id.

23 Between 2013 and 2023, the number of unsheltered homeless

people counted by the Los Angeles City and County Continuum

of Care increased 132%, from 22,590 to 52,307. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, PIT and HIC Data

since 2007, HUD Exchange, (last viewed Mar. 1, 2024)

https//www.hudexchange.info/resource/3031/pit-and-hic-datasince 2007.

18

D. The Failure of LAMC §41.18 to Reduce

Homelessness

Los Angeles Municipal Code §41.18 has been a

key tool in the City’s criminalization of unsheltered

individuals over more than two decades. In February

2023, Los Angeles City Councilmember Yaroslavsky

submitted a motion to the City Council calling for an

evaluation of the effectiveness of the most recent

amendments to §41.18 in reducing homelessness. 24

Although the government report is complete, according to news reports it is being withheld from public

disclosure - and from some of the councilmembers because it concludes that §41.18 fails to achieve its

goals to reduce the number of persons sleeping in public spaces because of the lack of resources.

News sources that obtained a copy of the document reported that 94% of people at encampments

targeted for enforcement under 41.18 wanted shelter,

but only 18% of those were successful in getting shelter. Nick Gerda, Hidden City Report Finds LA Council’s Signature Anti-Encampment Law Is Failing,

———————————

24 Following the City Council’s approval of the Yaroslavsky motion, amicus CANGRESS published a report based on interviews

with unhoused individuals in the Skid Row area. The report,

“Separate and Unequal: A Comprehensive Community Assessment of LAMC 41.18 by LA Community Action Network,” found

that only 14 percent of the unhoused community interviewed in

Los Angeles Coucil District 15 had been offered shelter. LA Community Action Network, Separate and Unequal, graph at p. 2.

(last accessed Mar. 1, 2024) https://cangress.org/publications/

19

LAIST, (Mar 2, 2024) https://laist.com/news/housinghomelessness/los-angeles-homeless-enforcement-report-on-4118. Since then, Los Angeles County Board

of Supervisors member Lindsay Horvath, chair of the

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, made the

LAHSA report public.25

The report concluded that “[m]ost individuals

impacted by 41.18 operations had already been actively searching for housing with an outreach worker.

… Those that were connected to interim housing were

also unlikely to experience successful outcomes. Most

encampments saw client repopulations within a year.

… 41.18 falls short of more effective encampment resolution efforts, such as Inside Safe or other Encampment-to-Home initiatives,” neither of which is based

on criminalization. See: LAHSA’s “Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 41.18 Effectiveness Report (210329-S4)”, November 28. 2023 (edits supplied).

LAHSA documented the unsuccessful efforts of

unsheltered persons to find a place to sleep indoors.

The report found that almost 94 percent of those impacted by 41.18 were already actively seeking housing

and were enrolled in Street Outreach before this

———————————

25 Linsey Horvath, @LindseyPHorvath, Twitter (Mar. 4, 2024)

(19) Lindsey P. Horvath on X: https://t.co/MqglkJEriV" / X (twitter.com) and Paul Rubenstein, Re: Los Angeles Municipal Code

Section 41.18 Effectiveness Report (21-0329-S4),(Nov. 28, 2023)

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24453676/4118-efficacy-summary-report.pdf

20

newest round of criminal enforcement began. “[A] significant majority of individuals were actively working

with their outreach workers to find housing before the

41.18 ordinance came into effect.” Id., p. 3. Again,

94% of unsheltered persons were enrolled in programs

to obtain housing but only 18% were able to find housing.

E. The City Has Allowed Low-Income Housing to Be Destroyed While It Claimed to

Pursue Other Options for Addressing

Homelessness

The City of Los Angeles has a long history of

unsuccessfully “pursuing” options for shelter and

housing to address the ever-growing unsheltered population in the City. This section highlights just a few

of those efforts.

In the late 1960s, Los Angeles had approximately 15,000 units in Single Room Occupancy

(“SRO”) hotels in Los Angeles’ Skid Row area. 26 In

1987, then-Mayor Tom Bradley rejected a proposal by

homeless services advocates for a six-month moratorium on the removal of encampments in the Skid Row

area. 27 At the time, the City was subject to an order

———————————

26 Skid Row History project by UCLA Luskin Social Welfare Department (http://luskin.ucla.edu/social-welfare).

27 Penelope McMillan and Roxane Arnol, Bradley Proposes Temporary Camp for L.A.’s Homeless, L.A. Times, (March 5, 1987)

21

of the Los Angeles Superior Court requiring posting of

notices about any action to remove encampments at

least 12 hours before the sweeps began. Id.

A few months later, Mayor Bradley submitted a

proposal to the Los Angeles City Council to pass a oneyear moratorium on the destruction of Skid Row hotels, housing thousands of low-income residents. 28

Mayor Bradley noted that 8,000 to 10,000 low-income

units were at risk of destruction in Skid Row, alone.

At the time the moratorium was proposed, six of the

Skid Row area’s 80 single-room-occupancy (“SRO”) hotels were demolished in the prior year, eliminating

housing for nearly 500 low-income individuals. Id.

In 1989, Mayor Bradley again proposed a twoyear ban on the demolition of Skid Row hotels. As

Mayor Bradley was quoted as saying at the time,

“[t]hese hotels are our last defense against homelessness.” 29 Dozens of the SROs on Skid Row, which

housed an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 poor, aging, and

disabled individuals, were demolished over the prior

———————————

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-06-04-me-4837story.html .

28 Bill Boyarsky, Bradley Calls for Halt to Razing of Skid Row

Hotels, L.A. Times, (July 22, 1987) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-07-22-me-3367 -story.html

29 Frederick Muir, Bradley Proposes Skid Row Hotel Demolition

Ban, L.A. Times, (Mar.10, 1989) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-03-10-me-1106 -story.html

22

two decades to make way for commercial development. Id.

In 1992, when the most recent moratorium expired, the City Council initially failed to pass an extension. In the course of debating the moratorium, city

housing officials noted that 20,000 low-income housing units were lost to commercial and industrial development over the prior two decades, increasing the

number of people without shelter in the City. 30

In 2002, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles

filed a lawsuit on behalf of low-income residents of

Skid Row, challenging an amendment to the CBD redevelopment plan for the City Center Los Angeles,

which would lead to the destruction of even more lowincome housing in the area. Jerome Wiggins, et al. v.

Board of Directors of the Community Redevelopment

Agency of the City of Los Angeles, et al., LASC Case

No. BC277539. A stipulated settlement reached in

2006 created a “no net loss” policy for low-income

housing in downtown Los Angeles, primarily for residential hotels. The Wiggins Settlement created a

baseline of more than 9,000 low-income units in downtown.

———————————

30 Luis Sahagun and Greg Krikorian, Moratorium on Razing of

Residential Hotels Expires : Housing: Council scrambles to pass extension of 1989 measure intended to balance rights of property owners and low-income tenants, L.A. Times, (Sept. 19,

1992) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-09-19-me731-story.html

23

In 2003, advocates for unsheltered residents of

Skid Row filed an action to enjoin the arrest, incarceration, and criminal citations for sleeping at night on

the sidewalks of Skid Row when there was no available and adequate shelter. Jones, 444 F.3d at 1118. In

2006, the parties entered into a settlement in Jones,

requiring the City to create 1200 new low-income

housing units, with half located on Skid Row. It took

the City nearly a decade to complete these units. 31

II. CRIMINALIZING BASIC AND ESSENTIAL

LIFE ACTIVITIES FOR UNSHELTERED

INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NO CHOICE BUT

TO LIVE IN PUBLIC SPACES SERVES NO

LEGITIMATE PENOLOGICAL PURPOSE

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the City from

punishing involuntary sitting, lying, or sleeping on

public sidewalks that is an unavoidable consequence

of being human and homeless without shelter in the

City of Los Angeles.” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1138. Imposing criminal laws on unsheltered individuals “for involuntary sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks that is an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter” because of grossly

insufficient resources available to allow them to avoid

———————————

31 City’s 2015 Assessment of the Jones settlement available at:

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/files/jones_settlement_factsheet_6_10_15.pdf

24

sleeping and sitting in public places with their property serves no legitimate penological goal. Id.

Under our justice system, “[a] penalty also

must accord with the ‘dignity of man, which’ is the

basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment.

This means that the punishment not be ‘excessive.’”

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976) (internal

citation omitted). Criminal punishment of individuals

who have no place to live “is nothing more than the

purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering[.]” Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 592 1977.

Los Angeles, with the largest unsheltered population in the nation, underscores why this is so when

compliance with the law is impossible. Even a person

who obtains shelter on one day has no guarantee they

will obtain shelter the next day. And, even if cited or

arrested on one day, nearly 50,000 unsheltered persons will face the same odds and impossibility of compliance that day and the next through no fault of their

own, because there will still be no place for them to

rest during the day or night other than the streets,

sidewalks and other public places.

A. The Availability of a “Necessity Defense”

Does Not Cure the Eighth Amendment Violation

In Jones, the Ninth Circuit questioned the City

of Los Angeles’ policy of criminal enforcement of

LAMC §41.18(d) when the City conceded homeless

25

individuals could not be convicted based on a necessity

defense. 444 F.3d at 1131. The City affirmatively argued that the draconian ban applied against Mr.

Jones and the other plaintiffs need not be enjoined because everyone cited would be able to raise a successful necessity defense.

This argument was properly rejected because it

offended the Eighth Amendment’s assurance against

cruel and unusual punishment. The Ninth Circuit

asked the obvious question: “If there is no offense for

which the homeless can be convicted, is the City admitting that all that comes before is merely police harassment of a vulnerable population?” Id.

In California, appellate courts have carved out

an affirmative defense of necessity “despite the absence of any statutory articulation of this defense and

rulings from the California Supreme Court that the

common law is not a part of the criminal law in California.” People v. Garziano, 230 Cal. App. 3d 241, 243

(1991); see also In re Eichorn 69 Cal. App. 4th 382, 388

(1988); (charged with violating a ban on sleeping in

public places).

In re Eichorn concerned a homeless veteran

who was arrested and convicted for sleeping on the

grounds of the Santa Ana Civic Center in violation of

the city’s anticamping ordinance. Id. at 382-87. The

Eichorn court set aside the conviction, finding that the

trial court committed error when it refused to allow

Eichorn to raise a necessity defense. Id. “There was

26

substantial if not uncontradicted evidence that defendant slept in the civic center because his alternatives were inadequate and economic forces were primarily to blame for his predicament.” Id. at 390.

Therefore, defendant was “entitled to raise a necessity

defense to charges he violated the camping ordinance”

Id. at 391.

In the same vein, the California Supreme Court

held that the necessity defense was available to any

person cited under a Santa Ana ordinance banning

“camping” and storage of personal property on public

property, even though the Court rejected a facial challenge to the ordinance. Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9

Cal.4th 1069, 1087-1088 (1995) .

The necessity defense is rooted in the public

policy need to protect individuals against criminal

punishment in circumstances where criminal conduct

is pursued to avoid a greater “harm or evil” without

the availability of an alternative legal course of action.

In re Eichorn 69 Cal. App. 4th at 389. But the necessity defense can only be raised after the criminal

charges are brought and is asserted after the fact to

absolve otherwise criminal conduct despite proof of a

crime. Id. at 389. See also People v. Pepper 41 Cal.

App. 4th 1029, 1035 (1996)). In short. “the Eighth

Amendment does not permit punishing a homeless

person for public camping when the camping is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless. State v.

27

Barrett, 302 Or. App. 23, 44–45 (2020) (Ortega, J., concurring in the judgment).

Again, as the Ninth Circuit emphasized in

Jones, the availability of a necessity defense would not

eliminate the continued and repeated threat of being

“fined, arrested, imprisoned, and/or prosecuted, as

well as suffer the loss of their personal property.” Id.

at 1131. The Court understood that unhoused litigants likely would not have counsel to raise the necessity defense, nor would they have the knowledge or

resources to raise the defense on their own. Id. In the

face of daily criminalization of essential life activities,

unhoused individuals will continue to pay the repercussions for circumstances that are beyond their control, meaning they will have to weigh survival or a restriction of their freedom.

B. The Adverse Consequences of Criminalization Support the Holding that the

Eighth Amendment is Violated Here

Consistent with the holding in Jones, in 2019 the

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (“LAHSA”)

issued “Guiding Principles and Practices for Local Responses to Unsheltered Homelessness.” LAHSA recognized the adverse consequences of criminalization

as the response to homelessness.

Using the criminal system to address homelessness is not only personally harmful to the individual

charged, but “disruptive to progress toward ending

28

their homelessness. document recognized the trauma

resulting from arrest, citation and incarceration and

emphasized that criminalization should be the last resort because of “the serious adverse consequences on

a person experiencing homelessness. LAHSA also emphasized that criminal penalties, including fines and

jail time, impede efforts to achieve “stability, work toward their goals, and secure employment and/or longterm housing.” Id.

The same conclusions were reached in a June

2023 statewide study of homelessness published by

the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative at

University of California, San Francisco. Considering

the impact of criminal charges on homeless individuals, the report found that it was necessary to “address

the criminal justice system to homelessness cycle.”

Toward a New Understanding The California Statewide

Study of People Experiencing Homelessness, Policy Recommendations, p.87.

Nearly one in five participants (19%) entered

homelessness from an institutional setting, including

jail and prison. Thirty-seven percent spent time in

prison and 77% spent time in jail at some point in

their lifetimes. While experiencing homelessness, 30%

of all participants had a jail stay during their current

episode. Participants reported their prior criminal

justice records were a barrier to employment and

housing. Id. at 87.

29

A recent analysis conducted by LAHSA also assessed LAMC 41.18 operations from December 2021

to November 2023, a period over which 174 encampment clear-outs were conducted in Los Angeles. 32 The

report considered whether 41.18 was effectively reducing homelessness by 1) housing Angelenos and 2)

preventing encampments from returning. In this regard, LAHSA concluded that 41.18 was ineffective. 33

Among this report’s key findings were that nearly all

encampments reemerged post-clearing. In one encampment clearing, 52 out of 54 residents of the encampment wanted shelter, but only 2 were provided

with shelter. 34

The report also noted that displacement of unhoused individuals often results in them losing contact with service providers. “[E]ncampment clearings

can disrupt their service pathway. Clients may move

away from the location and providers may lose contact

after clients are displaced. Clients may also become

distrustful of providers and refuse services after being

forced to move from their current location. Encampment clearings can lead to a loss of ID and

———————————

32Nick Gerda, Hidden City Report Finds LA Council’s Signature

Anti-Encampment Law Is Failing, Laist, (Mar. 1, 2024)

https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/los-angeles-homeless-enforcement-report-on-4118

33 Id.

34 Id.

30

documentation that are crucial for ongoing services

and eventual housing.” Id., p. 4.

Similarly, encampment clearings can lead to a

loss of vital documents — documents, such as a birth

certificate, that are required to prove identification. 35

Without these vital documents, unhoused individuals

are unable to procure a driver’s license, access their

social security benefits, visit a doctor, fill out a W-9,

open a bank account, save for their future, access food

stamps, or, crucially, find housing. 36 Their lack of a

birth certificate and other vital documents renders

unhoused people invisible, and it makes their journey

out of houselessness virtually impossible.

In other words, not only does criminalizing unhoused individuals not deter houselessness (and thus

not serve a legitimate penological purpose), but by

causing displacement and removal, criminalization

can dispossess vulnerable people of their access to

benefits — those benefits intended precisely for people

in their economic condition. In doing so, criminalization traps people in houselessness. The loss of identification documents is merely one facet, albeit an

———————————

35 Id.

36 Teresa Wiltz, Without ID, Homeless Trapped in Vicious Cycle,

Stateline, (May 15, 2017) https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/05/15/without-idhomeless-trapped-in-vicious-cycle.

31

important one, that highlights the fact that criminalization serves no legitimate penological purpose.

CONCLUSION

The Ninth Circuit correctly held that the ordinance in question creates a violation of the Eighth

Amendment. The judgment below should be affirmed.

Dated: April 2, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

CAROL A. SOBEL

2632 Wilshire Blvd, #552

Santa Monica, CA 90403

carolsobellaw@gmail.com

t. (310) 393 3055

PAUL L. HOFFMAN

MELANIE PARTOW

UC Irvine School of Law

Civil Rights litigation Clinic

P.O. Box 5479

Irvine, CA 92616

hoffpaul@aol.com

melaniepartow@gmail.com

t. (310) 399 7040

MARK ROSENBAUM

Public Counsel

610 S. Ardmore Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 90005

mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org

t. (213) 385 2977

ISHVAKU VASHISHTHA

Inner City Law Center

1309 E. Seventh Street

Los Angeles, CA 90021

ivashishtha@innercitylaw.org

t. (213) 385 2977