Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/404286333/Order-Denying-Rehearing-En-Banc-Martin-v-City-of-Boise-No-15-35845-9th-Cir-Apr-1-2019
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:49:00+00:00

Document:
F. BELL; PAMELA S. HAWKES; and D.C. No.
and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges.
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.
otherwise joined the majority in full.
never a viable solution to the homelessness problem.
Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge M.
Smith, joined by Judges Callahan, Bea, Ikuta, Bennett and R.
residents, and businesses throughout the circuit. Judge M.
Brady J. Hall (argued), Michael W. Moore, and Steven R.
Kraft, Moore Elia Kraft & Hall LLP, Boise, Idaho; Scott B.
be filed concurrently with this order.
not be entertained in this case.
steroids, rather than reasoned judicial opinions.
case that had yet to be discussed.
the dissents’ challenges to the Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
weapon in reducing homelessness and its impact on the City.
violate the Eighth Amendment. Martin, 902 F.3d at 1035.
intended purpose for several reasons.
County Homelessness Initiative, L.A. County, http://homeless.lacounty.
of way or the erection of certain structures,” such as tents, id.
v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1138 (9th Cir. 2006)).
and, in all likelihood, pointless.
sleeping in public were on the books and sometimes enforced.
nowhere else to do so.
this holding by rehearing the case en banc.
Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir. 2018).
that has considered the issue.
Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968). It fails.
decision in Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).
as the panel in Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1138 (9th Cir.
2006), but that decision was later vacated. 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007).
whether they actually used or possessed drugs. Id. at 665.
narcotic drug” violates the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 667.
government could not criminalize one’s status. Id. at 534.
powerless to change.” Id. at 567 (Fortas, J., dissenting).
constitutional defect present in both cases. Id. at 567–68.
alcoholic for being drunk in a public place.” Id. at 553.
constitute the holding of Powell. Martin, 902 F.3d at 1048.
dissent into the majority opinion—defies logic.
constitutional because it involved the commission of an act.
conduct. United States v. Moore, 486 F.2d 1139, 1150 (D.C.
conduct”); Joshua v. Adams, 231 F. App’x 592, 594 (9th Cir.
application of Marks”). Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct.
Transcript of Oral Argument at 14, Hughes v. United States, 138 S.
Ct. 1765 (2018) (No. 17-155).
Powell a holding that does not exist.
Richard M. Re, Beyond the Marks Rule, 132 Harv. L. Rev.
fragmented opinion. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v.
by the courts of appeals”).
underlying the decisions of other appellate courts.
criminalizes [plaintiffs’] status as homeless alcoholics.” Id.
run afoul of Robinson and Powell.
is legislatively wise and what is legislatively unwise.
Powell, 392 U.S. at 539–40 (Black, J., concurring).
allowed to regulate where ‘camping’ occurs.” Id.
allow anyone who wishes to sit, lie, or sleep on the streets . . .
when homeless individuals have the choice to sleep indoors.
ought to know whether that option exists.
monetary damages and other relief.
year. See Heather Knight, A Better Model, A Better Result?, S.F.
provide sufficient shelter for the homeless.” Martin, 902 F.3d at 1048.
902 F.3d at 1048. What else is a life-sustaining activity?
heads over what they could and could not issue citations for.”).
duty to enforce an array of public health and safety laws.
witness, our neighborhoods will soon feature “[t]ents . . .
widely among people living outside or in shelters”).
Anderson could obtain prospective relief under Heck v.
against binding precedent on the issue.
(stating that Heck applies to claims for declaratory relief).
Martin and Anderson’s prospective claims did just that.
the invalidity of their previous convictions.
date-stamp witness statements at the time received. 520 U.S.
not bar prospective injunctive relief. Id. at 648.
plaintiffs’ prior convictions. According to data from the U.S.
convictions. Martin, 902 F.3d at 1048.
split with the Fifth Circuit.
conviction,” to bring an Eighth Amendment challenge.
as such.” Id. at 1046 (citing Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 667).
traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions.” 430 U.S.
after it has secured a formal adjudication of guilt.” Id.
Johnson v. City of Dallas, 61 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 1995).
Robinson, 370 U.S. at 663; Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 667).
Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 667 (quoting Powell, 392 U.S.
has no legitimate basis in current law.
to reconsider this case en banc. I respectfully dissent.
conduct a state may criminalize.
(1977) (citing Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)).
limitation as one to be applied sparingly.” Id. As Judge M.
rehear this case en banc.
interpretation of Section 10. See Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S.
intended to provide at least the same protection”); Timbs v.
was designed to vindicate.” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S.
957, 967 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring).
Amendment meant when it was written.
Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 664 (footnote omitted).
concurring) (quoting Second Trial of Titus Oates, 10 How. St.
Parliament complained of in the Declaration of Rights.
Criminal Law 710–12 (5th Am. ed. 1847); Anthony F.
Original Meaning, 57 Calif. L. Rev. 839, 859 (1969)).
are not regularly or customarily employed.” Id. at 976.
directed at prohibiting certain methods of punishment.” Id.
57 Calif. L. Rev. at 842) (emphasis in Harmelin).
text and tradition of the Eighth Amendment.
Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.
Eighth Amendment’s criminalization component. Jones v.
(Rymer, J., dissenting), vacated, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir.
that may be inflicted upon one convicted of an offense.
used to limit what may be made criminal”); see also United States v.
offense for which a sentence is imposed”).
law stretches the Eighth Amendment past its breaking point.
following conviction for an offense.
conviction and sentence.” Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1032 (2d Cir.
banc, and I respectfully dissent.
go to. We conclude that it does.
declaratory and injunctive relief against future prosecution.
most favorable to the plaintiffs. Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct.
the night of the count.
three shelters are the only shelters in Ada County.
mats when it reaches capacity with beds.
Light”), shelters women and children only.
anyone arriving after 8:00 pm is denied shelter.
Program, has overtly religious components.
Smith, Basil E. Humphrey, Pamela S. Hawkes, and Janet F.
homeless and has often relied on Boise’s shelters for housing.
attend chapel services before he was permitted to eat dinner.
was cited again in 2012 under the same ordinance.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202.
shelter has ever reported that it was full.
continue to issue citations regularly under both ordinances.
Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S.
issue of material fact as to the standing elements.” Id.
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” 512 U.S. at 486–87.
overnight shelter.” Boise City Code §§ 6-01-05, 9-10-02.
favorable ruling.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct.
relief is barred by the doctrine established in Heck.
respect to Martin and Anderson only.
prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.” Babbitt v.
v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2002).
most favorable to the plaintiffs, we cannot agree.
that it will never turn people away due to lack space.
exhaust the number of days allotted by the facilities.
City Light has a similar 30-day limit for women and children.
him in the past, forcing him to sleep outdoors.
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Inouye v.
programming that is antithetical to his or her religious beliefs.
generally will deny shelter to anyone arriving after 8:00 pm.
shelter at either BRM facility.
issued over 175 such citations.
therefore have standing to seek prospective relief.
enjoining prospective enforcement of the ordinances.
sentenced to one additional day in jail.
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555 (1974) (emphasis added).
suggested that Heck may not apply in such circumstances.
Spencer, 523 U.S. at 3.
petition seeking to invalidate an order revoking his parole.
impossible as a matter of law for him to satisfy.” Id. at 21.
Nonnette in recent years. Most notably, we held in Lyall v.
did not do so. Id. at 1192 & n.12.
damages are foreclosed under Lyall.
were dismissed before the state obtained a conviction.
the plaintiffs, the Heck doctrine has no application. 512 U.S.
confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81–82.
for violating that same statute in the future.
Wilkinson compel the opposite conclusion.
§ 1983.” Edwards, 520 U.S. at 648 (emphasis added).
allegedly unconstitutional procedures in the future. Id.
existing confinement, not one yet to come.
the plaintiffs’ requests for prospective injunctive relief.
same reasons articulated in the now-vacated Jones opinion.
unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const., amend. VIII.
criminalize. Id. It is the third limitation that is pertinent here.
“one to be applied sparingly.” Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 667.
invalid under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.
the challenged statute a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Court elaborated on the principle first articulated in Robinson.
but conduct — appearing in public while intoxicated.
but for being in public while drunk on a particular occasion.
home.” Id. at 532 (plurality opinion).
it is, in some sense, ‘involuntary’ . . . .” Id. at 533.
avoiding public places when intoxicated is also impossible.
(White, J., concurring in the judgment).
875 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2017).
consequences of being human.” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1136.
sitting, lying, or sleeping on the streets.” Id. at 1137.
Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F. Supp. 344, 350 (N.D. Tex.
consequences of being human” in the way the ordinance prescribes. Id.
Costs shall be awarded to the plaintiffs.
I agree with the majority that the doctrine of Heck v.
Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178, 1192 n.12 (9th Cir. 2015).
of confinement or its duration.
concludes that the plaintiffs’ prospective claims may proceed.
demonstrate the invalidity of the plaintiffs’ prior convictions.
a conviction “as a substantive matter” are barred by Heck.
added) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487)).
Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 405 F.3d 1298, 1316 n.9 (11th Cir.

References: v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

v. 
 v.

§ 1983
 v. 
 v.