Ardgall v. City of Sausalito ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MADISON ARDGALL, Case No. 22-cv-04722-EMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 CITY OF SAUSALITO, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 On March 31, 2023, the Court issued an order directing Ms. Ardgall to show cause as to 15 why her case should not be dismissed without prejudice based on a failure to prosecute. The 16 Court forewarned Ms. Ardgall that, if she did not timely file a response, then her case would 17 automatically be dismissed without prejudice based on her failure to prosecute. The Court’s order 18 to show cause was served on Ms. Ardgall at the address of record, as well as at other physical 19 addresses and email addresses that appeared in other filings from Ms. Ardgall. 20 On April 1, 2023, Ms. Ardgall sent an email to the Courtroom Deputy.1 The Court has not 21 filed a copy of that email because it contains personal information about Ms. Ardgall that she may 22 not wish to have publicly revealed. The Court, however, shall describe in general terms the 23 content of her email. Ms. Ardgall states, inter alia, that she has had difficulty accessing the 24 Internet and that she has been experiencing housing difficulties. 25 Based on Ms. Ardgall’s email, the Court discharges its order to show cause dated March 26 27 1 The copies of the order that were mailed to physical addresses were returned as undeliverable. 1 31. However, the Court notes for Ms. Ardgall that, although it is not unsympathetic to her 2 situation, she still has an obligation to prosecute this suit. Her complaint was predicated on the 3 Marinship Park encampment being closed, her having no alternative place to stay, and her fear that 4 she would be arrested simply for being homeless. In her email, Ms. Ardgall appears to have 5 housing issues still but there is no indication that the City or its employees or agents have 6 threatened to arrest her based on her status as a homeless person. Indeed, the Court refers Ms. 7 Ardgall again to the City’s representation that it “does not currently plan to arrest any individual 8 for sleeping outdoors or on public property when they do not have alternative housing available to 9 them at night under Resolution No. 6008 and 6009.” Gregory Decl. ¶ 2 (dated 1/31/2023). 10 Taking into account the above, the Court shall proceed as follows. The Court orders Ms. 11 Ardgall to show cause as to why her case should not be dismissed based on the City’s 12 representation that it will, in effect, comply with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. City of 13 Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), which held that “an ordinance violates the Eighth 14 Amendment insofar as it imposes criminal sanctions against homeless individuals for sleeping 15 outdoors, on public property, when no alternative shelter is available to them.” Id. at 604. 16 The Court acknowledges that “‘voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not 17 deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case’ unless ‘it can be said with assurance 18 that “there is no reasonable expectation . . . ” that the alleged violation will recur’ and ‘interim 19 relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.’” 20 Fikre v. FBI, 904 F.3d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 2018). On the other hand, “[w]here [the defendant] is 21 the government we presume that it acts in good faith, though the government must still 22 demonstrate that the change in its behavior is ‘entrenched’ or ‘permanent.” Id. Taking into 23 account the history of the main Marinship Park case (which was filed back in 2021) and the 24 number of individual suits (including Ms. Ardgall’s) that followed, the Court is satisfied that the 25 City has demonstrated that its representation that it will comply with Martin is made in good faith 26 and that this is an entrenched and firm position. 27 Ms. Ardgall’s response to this order to show cause shall be filed by May 23, 2023. The 1 automatically be dismissed with prejudice based on mootness grounds. To be clear, a dismissal 2 based on mootness would not preclude Ms. Ardgall from filing a new suit should the City and/or 3 its employees or agents arrest her in violation of Martin. 4 The Court shall serve a copy of this order on Ms. Ardgall’s address of record, and it shall 5 also send courtesy copies of this order to: 6 • The address listed in her email: 1600 Bryant #410596, San Francisco, CA 94941. 7 • The email address listed in her complaint: ardgallm@gmail.com. 8 • The email address she recently used to communicate with the Court: 9 pantherareclusa@gmx.com. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: April 25, 2023 14 15 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27