Hooper et al v. City Of Seattle, Washington et al
Filing
192
ORDER denying National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty's 145 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
LISA HOOPER, et al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
Case No. C17-0077RSM
v.
13
14
15
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF
CITY OF SEATTLE, et al.,
Defendants.
16
This matter is before the Court on the National Law Center on Homelessness and
17
Poverty’s (“NLCHP”) Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief. Dkt. #145. NLCHP is a nonprofit
18
organization whose mission is to prevent and end homelessness. Id. at 2. As part of its mission,
19
20
NLCHP has published several reports assessing the impact of local ordinances on the lives of
21
homeless persons and taxpayers. Id. NLCHP has also published reports on the legal and policy
22
responses to homeless encampments in the United States. Id. Given its work in the arena of
23
homelessness, NLCHP contends it possesses a unique perspective that allows it to “provide
24
25
constructive advice” on how laws affecting homeless populations can better protect homeless
26
persons. Id. Defendants, the City of Seattle (the “City”) and the Washington State Department
27
of Transportation (“WSDOT”), oppose NLCHP’s motion.
28
Defendants, NLCHP should not be granted leave to file its amicus brief because (1) the proposed
See Dkt. #150.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF - 1
According to
1
brief does not go beyond what Plaintiffs’ counsel could have argued in their preliminary
2
injunction motion; (2) the proposed brief argues facts and does not draw attention to the law; and
3
(3) the proposed brief presents factual matter that is not useful to the Court. Id. at 3–7. For the
4
reasons discussed herein, the Court agrees with Defendants and DENIES NLCHP’s motion.
5
6
District courts have broad discretion to admit amicus briefing. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d
7
1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472
8
(1995). The “classic role” of amicus curiae has been to “assist[] in a case of general public
9
interest, supplementing the efforts of counsel, and drawing the court’s attention to law that
10
11
escaped consideration.” Miller-Wohl Co., Inc. v. Comm’r of Labor & Indus. State of Mont., 694
12
F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982). There are no strict prerequisites to qualify as amici, although
13
amicus must “‘make a showing that his participation is useful to or otherwise desirable to the
14
court.’” In re Roxford Foods Litig., 790 F. Supp. 987, 997 (E.D. Cal. 1991) (quoting United
15
States v. Louisiana, 751 F. Supp. 608, 620 (E.D. La. 1990)).
16
17
Upon consideration of NLCHP’s motion and its proposed amicus brief, the Court finds
18
NLCHP fails to provide useful or unique information. NLCHP contends it can provide the Court
19
with “unique information and perspective relevant to several key questions before the Court.”
20
Dkt. #145, Ex. A at 6. To support this argument, NLCHP references its own model policy,
21
several of its own reports, and several surveys. See Dkt. #145 at 4–5. However, the Court does
22
23
not find NLCHP’s attempt to draw comparisons between its model policy (or the policies of other
24
cities) and Defendants’ policies useful in its analysis of the legal issues posed by Plaintiffs’
25
preliminary injunction motion. Aside from highlighting its model sweep policy language and
26
the language of other cities’ policies, NLCHP’s amicus brief merely bolsters, and does not
27
28
supplement, Plaintiffs’ arguments; the proposed brief also fails to draw the court’s attention to
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF - 2
1
law that may escape its consideration. Additionally, NLCHP does not try to explain why
2
information gleaned from the reports and surveys it cites should apply to Defendants’ actions.
3
However, even had NLCHP explained why a comparison is warranted, the Court would
4
nonetheless not find this information useful or unique as it merely highlights harms similar to
5
6
7
those claimed by Plaintiffs. Consequently, the Court exercises its broad discretion and will deny
NLCHP leave to file its proposed amicus brief.
8
Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
9
finds and ORDERS that NLCHP’s Motion for leave to participate as amicus curiae, Dkt. #145,
10
11
is DENIED. 1
DATED this 28th day of August, 2017.
12
13
14
15
A
16
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court did not rely on the City’s proposed supplemental declaration (Dkt. #154) in making
its decision. Consequently, the City’s motion to file a supplemental declaration in support of its
opposition (Dkt. #153) is STRICKEN as MOOT.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF - 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?