How a judge decided to leave Settlement Agreement intact A frustrated mayor responds; an advocacy organization for the unhoused applauds ruling

by Yucheng Tang
posted April 4

In September of last year, the City of Chico began another legal journey – this time an effort to exit the Warren v. Chico Settlement Agreement.

On March 31, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the City’s motion, which means the City has to abide by the five-year agreement that started in 2022 and ends in 2027.

The Settlement Agreement prohibits the City from enforcing anti-camping ordinances when adequate shelter is unavailable. In planning an eviction of unhoused campers from public spaces, the City must make a count of available shelter beds, advise plaintiff counsel Legal Services of Northern California (LSNC) and notice campers who will be assessed and referred elsewhere. Some City officials consider the process unnecessarily onerous.

The settlement was the result of a 2021 lawsuit against the City and its police department filed by Legal Services, a legal aid agency. The lawsuit argued that the City was violating the rights of homeless people when it razed encampments.

The order says that the City voluntarily entered the agreement and failed to demonstrate any changed circumstances that warrant the granting of relief.

Viewpoints on the ruling differ
Some City leaders and homeless advocates view this recent ruling in different ways.

After seven months of waiting for the court ruling, Chico Mayor Kasey Reynolds said she was disappointed that the City’s motion was denied.

“While we respect the judicial process, we firmly disagree with the Court’s ruling,” Reynolds said. “This will continue to limit the City’s ability to timely and effectively address the public safety issues in the City.”

In an emailed statement, Reynolds wrote that the City is reviewing the Court’s decision and evaluating its legal options going forward. “I would not rule out any possibility at this time, however cost and time will need to be carefully considered with any and all decisions made on the City’s behalf,” she said.

Reynolds also noted that this agenda falls into the “Existing Litigation” category, meaning that it will only be discussed in closed session rather than publicly at the City Council meeting.

LSNC, which represented the eight unsheltered people in the Warren v. Chico case, said it is pleased that the court held the City of Chico to the obligations it agreed to in the Settlement Agreement.

Will Knight, decriminalization director at the National Homelessness Law Center, views the recent Warren v. Chico ruling as good news. He is part of the team of attorneys and advocates dedicated to protecting the rights of the homeless and solving homelessness.

“Despite the shameful ruling in Grants Pass, it remains counterproductive, morally corrupt, and legally unwise for cities to arrest or fine people for living outside when they have nowhere else to go,” Knight said.

City watched U.S. Supreme Court ruling
The City’s motion followed the Supreme Court’s decision in the Grants Pass v. Johnson case, which overturned its previous ruling and allowed cities to evict and penalize individuals sleeping in public, even when no alternative public spaces or shelters are available.

“Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars by passing or enforcing laws that make it illegal to be homeless or reopening settled cases,” Knight said, “elected officials in Chico and across the country must focus on proven solutions to homelessness, like housing and care.”

But the Supreme Court’s ruling became one of the key arguments in the City of Chico’s motion.

The City contended that “it is inequitable for the Settlement Agreement to remain
unmodified because the decision in Grants Pass would not constrain their enforcement of the Anti-Camping Ordinances,” according to the judge’s order.

The court was not persuaded. “This is because defendants voluntarily entered into the Settlement Agreement, thereby agreeing to assume obligations beyond the minimum constitutional requirements, and did so for the purposes of resolving the litigation,” the order explains.

The court order also says that the City failed to demonstrate that some public safety issues, like fires and crimes, have worsened after entering the Settlement Agreement.

LSNC pointed out that “the overwhelming majority of unhoused people who have talked with us say they would stay at the Pallet Shelter if they were offered a spot, yet it is our understanding that the Shelter has never once filled since it opened.”

Members of the public indicated concern about the City’s approach to homelessness during the March 4 City Council meeting. Felix Mahootian protested the ongoing eviction sweeps launched by the City. “As it stands, the sweeps do nothing to help leverage folks out of homelessness who are there,” Mahootian said. “These are just enforcement, not preventive.”

In fact, despite the Settlement Agreement’s restrictions on ordinance enforcement, the City has published 15 notices of planned enforcement of camping ordinances since February 2024.

An unhoused man ChicoSol spoke with during the Feb. 27 eviction sweep at City Plaza said he didn’t know where to move his belongings. He said he might relocate to a parking lot or under tree cover for a few days. In the end, he said, he would return to City Plaza.

The man said he preferred the Genesis pallet shelter emergency housing over the Torre Community Shelter for its greater freedom. Though he had been repeatedly offered a Torres Shelter bed, he preferred to remain unsheltered.

“We look forward to continuing to work with the City to improve conditions and access to shelter for Chico’s unhoused residents, particularly by increasing opportunities for unhoused people to enter the Pallet Shelter,” says the LSNC statement.

Yucheng Tang is a California Local News Fellow reporting for ChicoSol.