Unfair to require indigent homeless women to defend both criminal and civil cases for living in city park

People ex rel. Burns v. Wood (Cal. Ct. App., July 11, 2024, No. G061001) 2024 WL 3370029, at *1–2

Summary: The city of Fountain Valley (the City) sought to prohibit  Nancy Wood, an indigent homeless woman, from residing in the City’s Mile Square Park (the Park), which is near the hospital where she receives treatment for cancer and heart disease. The City had no homeless shelter at that time.

Procedural History: The City first filed a criminal complaint against Wood which entitled her to representation by appointed counsel. Wood conceded she was residing in the Park in violation of the City’s ordinance but argued necessity as a defense.

While that criminal case was pending, the same City attorneys who were prosecuting Wood criminally filed this civil lawsuit for nuisance against her. Because she was indigent and not entitled to appointed counsel, Wood defended herself against the same lawyers who were simultaneously prosecuting her criminally. The trial court was aware of this.

In the civil case, Wood again conceded her violation of the City’s ordinances and argued necessity as a defense. Due to COVID restrictions, all proceedings were conducted remotely.  Wood informed the court that she had not received the City’s trial exhibits, the court observed there was a record that the City had served her by mail (at a local soup kitchen). The court found Wood culpable for public nuisance because she was residing with her belongings in the Park, in violation of city ordinances. The court then waited five months before issuing its judgment prohibiting Wood from having her “illegal encampment”in the Park at any hour of the day, and from being in the Park during the hours it is closed to the public. Less than a week after the court entered its judgment, Wood was acquitted in the criminal nuisance case.

Wood argues the judgment should be reversed because the trial court failed to stay the civil action until after the City’s concurrent criminal prosecution of her was completed. Wood also argues the court erred by refusing to consider her evidence related to the same necessity defense she successfully relied on in the criminal case. Wood argues the City improperly sought punitive injunctive relief in this case, in violation of the constitutional double jeopardy prohibition.

The Court of appeal held that trial court abused its discretion in failing to stay this case pending the outcome of Wood’s criminal case and reversed the judgment and remand the case with directions that the trial court reconsider the propriety of the injunction.

The trial court ignored the evidence supporting Wood’s defense of necessity in deciding to issue the injunction in this case. The decision to issue an injunction in a civil case involves an exercise of the court’s equitable jurisdiction and the court is therefore obligated to consider all relevant evidence. The circumstances supporting Wood’s claimed need to reside in the Park are relevant considerations for the trial court on that issue.

Public Nuisance Law

Civil Code section 3479 defines a nuisance as: “Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.” A nuisance may be a public nuisance, a private nuisance, or both.  A nuisance is public when it “affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” (Civ. Code, § 3480.)

To be considered a nuisance per se the object, substance, activity or circumstance at issue must be expressly declared to be a nuisance by its very existence by some applicable law.

Conduct that qualifies as a public nuisance may be punishable criminally and enjoined civilly pursuant to the court’s equitable jurisdiction. (Civ. Code, § 3491; People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1108-1109 [“Acts or conduct which qualify as public nuisances are enjoinable as civil wrongs or prosecutable as criminal misdemeanors”].)

The issuance of an injunction is an exercise of the court’s equitable authority. The court must balance the interests of the two sides in deciding whether to grant such relief.

If the court issues an injunction to abate a public nuisance and the defendant does not comply, the government can enforce the injunction through a criminal action for contempt of court. If the defendant is found guilty of willful contempt, the consequences can include punishment such as fines and incarceration. A civil injunction can also be a vehicle for imposing criminal sanctions.
The Court Abused Its Discretion by Failing to Stay this Case

Wood argued test requiring her to defend against the civil case at the same time she was a defendant in a criminal case was a violation of her rights to due process and equal protection.

Although a court has no absolute obligation to stay a civil case whenever a parallel criminal case is pending. (See Federal Savings and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro (9th Cir. 1989) 889 F.2d 899, 903.) The court has the authority and discretion to do so when the circumstances indicate that a stay is warranted, as they did here. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128-130; Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 208 Cal.Rptr. 743 (Pacers) [holding trial court abused its discretion by failing to stay civil case until expiration of criminal statute of limitations].)

There is an “inherent unfairness” in requiring a party to simultaneously defend civil and criminal cases arising out of the same conduct because it “compel[s] disclosure of a criminal defendant’s evidence and defenses before trial. The prosecution should not be able to obtain, through civil proceedings, information to which it was not entitled under the criminal discovery rules.

Wood was entitled to appointed counsel in the criminal case but had no such option in the civil case, and no resources to hire private counsel.  Wood had to deal directly with the same lawyers who were prosecuting her in the criminal case—lawyers who were otherwise ethically prohibited from communicating directly with her as a represented criminal defendant.

Although City has the right to enforce its ordinances and a significant interest in maintaining the public’s access to their recreational facilities, Wood’s competing interest in living in a place that maintains her access to the hospital where she was receiving medical treatment must be considered, weighed, and balanced.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.