Sacramento strikes back. DA Thien Ho’s bogus homeless lawsuit is on life support | Opinion

Reality Check is a Sacramento Bee series holding officials and organizations accountable and shining a light on their decisions. Have a tip? Email realitycheck@sacbee.com.

Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho’s attempt to prosecute the city of Sacramento for its management of the homeless crisis is on life support after a tentative ruling by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Jill Talley on Thursday.

Talley threw out the meat of the case, that homelessness is a nuisance and the city is responsible for it, and the underlying premise that Ho and the courts can tell a city how to do this difficult job.

“I think it is a clear victory for the city and a loss for Thien Ho,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, law school dean at the University of California, Berkeley, who has reviewed the case and predicted its demise.

Ho will get his day in court Friday, as Talley is scheduled to hear from both the city and the district attorney’s office on her proposed ruling. But unless Ho comes up with some new legal theories that have actual merit, his lawsuit is heading to the early death that it deserves.

Ho’s lawsuit smelled from the beginning like pure politics. When launching this crusade in September, Ho singled out the city as somehow responsible for homelessness and Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg in particular. He promised a trial of the century, with literally hundreds of residents and business owners testifying how the city has allowed homelessness to perpetuate in their neighborhoods.

Opinion

But a trial would require an actual case to legally prosecute and a remedy for a judge to impose. Ho has proven to be a political master of tapping into the public’s anger. As a litigant, he just got schooled by the office of the Sacramento City Attorney.

The meat of Ho’s case is that the city has become the nuisance as opposed to the condition of homelessness. Sacramento’s City Council has passed an ordinance banning encampments on sidewalks for example, and has tried to achieve compliance through voluntary approaches rather than issuing citations. There is no legal requirement for Sacramento to ticket the homeless. Ho’s case, wrote Talley, “does not identify a mandatory duty to act.”

Ho’s lawsuit has proven fatally vague on a solution. He has sought “injunctive/equitable relief” and has been unable to articulate in any pleading what that means. Ho’s lawsuit provides “no examples of how the City can address the issues alleged other than through legislation or enforcing existing laws,” wrote Talley in her tentative ruling. These are “remedies this Court cannot provide.”

Talley did give Ho the green light to use a section of California’s Fish and Game code for homeless activities that may impact a waterway. The city’s exposure is limited here. The American River Parkway, for example, is managed day-to-day by Sacramento County. And some science is pretty clear. Dogs and birds are far more responsible for fecal bacteria in the river than humans. To proceed with a case on this alone would be silly.

Talley was ruling on a motion by the city known as a demurrer that sought to invalidate the lawsuit for a lack of legal grounding. The city essentially wanted the entire case thrown out, with Ho precluded from amending his case. The city got most of what it wanted, but not everything.

Once Talley issues her final ruling, Ho will have 30 days to amend the case. So it’s not over. This charade could continue for some time.

Ho’s reputation as a district attorney is now squarely on the line. He has used a lot of staff resources in seeking to prosecute Sacramento. The city is on the verge of a huge victory.

His attempt to diminish Steinberg in particular has backfired. The whole notion that a government’s management of homelessness can be tried in court was nuts to begin with.

While Sacramentans are understandably fed up with a society that leaves its most desperate members on the streets, many also understand that playing politics with homelessness is not helpful. Two business-backed candidates who ran for mayor and who supported Ho’s lawsuit, for example, are not in the runoff for the November job. There is speculation that Ho may be contemplating higher office such as Attorney General. Ho made this lawsuit against Sacramento his signature move as district attorney. Voters should never forget this.

Ho’s stump speech on this litigation frequently refers to “compassion.” There has been nothing compassionate about prosecuting Sacramento for homeless management. His lawsuit hasn’t resulted in a single homeless person securing a home, drug treatment or anything of human value. His lawsuit has been a nuisance. It’s time for Ho to focus his energies on his actual job.