CORRESPONDENCE - CS -1A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

N enough; (6) there is no easily accessible parking; (7) it is necessary to walk ".35 miles" to get to an area where cooking is permitted; and (8) there is no place for residents to charge cell phones.8 The uncertainty around claims of this sort is putting insurmountable pressure on cities and counties to settle, rather than expose themselves to costly litigation and the threat of damages under Section 1983. See, e.g., Notice of Filing Settlement of Class Action, Orange Cty. Catholic Worker u. Orange Cty., et al., No. 8:18-cv-00155, Dkt. 318 (C.D. Cal., July 23, 2019). Finally, yet another category of questions concerns whether, and under what circumstances, a shelter's policies can render it unavailable for a given homeless individual. For example, many shelters have a religious orientation. See, e.g., Pet.App. 37a-39a. Is such a shelter unavailable to an individual who advances a religious objection? The panel suggested that "coerc[ing] an individual to attend religion -based treatment" "via the threat of prosecution" would violate the Establishment Clause. Pet.App. 47a. If that position is correct, it would potentially eliminate all religious shelters from the calculus required by the decision below. Moreover, it would also be necessary to ask what other constitutional rights may render large categories of shelters unavailable. For example, could "coerc[ing]" an individual to stay at a shelter that requires residents to surrender certain dangerous items constitute a Fourth Amendment violation (or a 8 Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order at 5, 15-18, Housing Is a Human Right Orange Cty. et al. u. Cty. of Orange et al., No. 8:19-cv-00388, Dkt. 69-1 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2019).