Martin v. City of Boise

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 · Property

920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertyhomelessnesssleeping in publiccamping ordinancecruel and unusual punishmentstatus versus conductinvoluntary conductavailable shelter

Facts

Boise enforced two ordinances against homeless individuals: one made it a misdemeanor to use public places as a camping place, and the other prohibited occupying, lodging, or sleeping in any public place without permission. The record showed Boise had three shelters, but access was limited by capacity, stay limits, late-arrival rules, and in the case of the Boise Rescue Mission shelters, religious components and enrollment conditions. Plaintiffs alleged that between 2007 and 2009 they were cited under these ordinances, and two plaintiffs sought prospective relief because they expected future enforcement when shelter was unavailable to them in practice. After the suit began, Boise adopted and later codified a policy barring enforcement when no shelter had available overnight space, but the City relied on shelters to self-report fullness and continued issuing citations.

Issue

Does the Eighth Amendment bar a city from enforcing ordinances that criminalize sleeping or camping on public property against homeless individuals who have no access to alternative shelter? Also, do two plaintiffs have standing to seek prospective relief, and does Heck v. Humphrey bar their retrospective and prospective claims under § 1983?

Rule

An ordinance violates the Eighth Amendment insofar as it imposes criminal sanctions against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors on public property when no alternative shelter is available to them. So long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction than the number of available shelter beds, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for involuntarily sleeping, sitting, or lying outside on the false premise that they had a choice in the matter. Heck bars § 1983 claims for retrospective relief that would necessarily imply the invalidity of prior convictions not favorably terminated, but it does not bar claims for prospective injunctive relief against future enforcement.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Mesa Verde, Arizona enforces an ordinance making it a misdemeanor to sleep in any public place overnight. On a January night, every secular shelter bed in the city is full, and the only remaining program has refused Omar Ruiz because he has exceeded its 14-night maximum stay and may not return for 30 days. Police cite Omar when they find him asleep on a bench with a blanket.

If Omar challenges the citation, which is the strongest argument?

Explanation. The governing rule is that government may not impose criminal sanctions on a homeless individual for sleeping outdoors on public property when no alternative shelter is practically available. Practical unavailability includes barriers such as stay limits, not just lack of physical capacity. Because Omar had nowhere he could actually go, punishing him for sleeping outside would effectively criminalize unavoidable conduct inseparable from his status.