Government Liability Update

City Legislators and Officers Immune from Liability for Leasing Homeless Shelter to Religious Group

 Community Housing Inc. v. City of Boise, published October 6, 2010, deals with a lawsuit brought by the former operator of a city-sponsored homeless shelter and individuals against the mayor, city manager, city councilmembers, and city administrators arising out of a decision to lease the shelter to a religious organization to operate.  The organization would offer shelter only to men; and would include religious services when providing meals.  The plaintiffs alleged that the lease violated the Establishment Clause and the Fair Housing Act. The defendants sought summary judgment based on legislative immunity and qualified immunity.  The district court denied the motion.

The 9th Circuit reversed.  The mayor and city councilmembers were entitled to legislative immunity.  They carried out their decisions through legislation; and their decisions affected the general population – specifically, the homeless portion of the city’s population.  The legislators were answerable for their decisions at the ballot box, not in the courtroom.

The officials were entitled to qualified immunity.  Although they were named in both their official and individual capacities – and defendants named in their official capacities are not entitled to qualified immunity – the plaintiffs’ true purpose in suing them was to hold them liable in their individual capacities.  They were entitled to qualified immunity for implementing the council’s decision, in the absence of clearly-established law otherwise.  Further, because the city had problems with the prior operator, the city and officials had no legal obligation to choose that operator, even if it came in with a lower bid.  Moreover, no principle of Establishment Clause jurisprudence requires that the government choose a secular entity over a religious one simply because it is secular.

Judge Kozinski wrote a separate opinion concurring with the other two judges’ decision, but for different reasons.

Officers’ Arrest of and Use of Force Against Woman under Influence of Drugs Does Not Give Rise to Liability

In Luchtel v. Hagemann, , published October 7, 2010, the 9th Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of police officers sued by a woman whom they subdued and arrested.  The woman, a crack cocaine addict according to the opinion, was overcome with paranoia during a domestic dispute.  She ran out of the house with her young child, yelling that someone was trying to kill her; hid under a car; rushed over to a neighbor’s house with the child; and, when police entered, denied that the officers were real police.  She grabbed her female neighbor and the two fell to the floor.  After her arrest, she sued the officers for false arrest and use of excessive force.  The 9th Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the officers. The court ruled that the officers had probable cause for the woman’s arrest, in light of her conduct.  It further ruled that the officers either used proper force to subdue her, or were entitled to qualified immunity for their decision to use that amount of force.  A dissenting judge opined that, when the facts were viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the officers overreacted to her conduct.