Los Angeles has taken the extraordinary step of asking a federal appeals court to kick U.S. District Judge David O. Carter off the massive LA Alliance for Human Rights homelessness settlement, according to newly filed court papers. The request to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, submitted by the city's outside counsel, lands just one day before a hearing Carter set to dig into whether the city misled the court about its plan for clearing encampments. City attorneys argue the judge has gone too far, while plaintiffs say the city has repeatedly ducked its obligations and now wants to escape accountability.
City asks appeals court to reassign judge
In a brief to the Ninth Circuit, the city's lawyers claimed that Carter has "used this proceeding as an improper roving commission to dictate the city's budget and its homelessness policy" and urged the appeals court to put someone else in charge, arguing that "Only the stronger medicine of reassignment will put a stop to the parade of irregular proceedings and rulings." The motion, handled by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, contends the court has repeatedly demanded in-person appearances by elected officials and leaned on extra-record material and its own fact-finding to push for compliance, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Hearing and high-stakes filings
The federal docket for the case shows just how fast things escalated. An order set a hearing for Tuesday, and multiple filings hit the record from Feb. 7 to 9, including the city's amended status report and its objections to holding the hearing at all, according to the Central District of California docket. Among the entries are Dkt. 1148, which sets the Feb. 10 hearing, and Dkts. 1151 to 1153, reflecting dueling briefs filed Monday. The flurry of paperwork means the dispute will be hashed out, at least in part, by appellate judges as well as the trial court.
Settlement details at issue
At the center of the fight is a 2022 settlement that requires the city to clear roughly 9,800 tents, vehicles and makeshift shelters and to provide housing or shelter for 12,915 people. Carter has pushed the city to hit those targets. Plaintiffs say the city repeatedly failed to file accurate progress reports and to cooperate with the court-appointed monitor, and their lawyers estimate the litigation has already run up roughly $7.5 million in legal bills for the city, according to the Los Angeles Times.
How judges are disqualified
Under federal law, a judge must step aside when "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned" under 28 U.S.C. § 455. The statute uses an objective "reasonable observer" standard and lists specific triggers for disqualification, such as personal bias, financial interest or prior involvement in the matter. These motions are highly fact-specific and are resolved either by the court asked to step aside or by an appellate panel reviewing the challenge. The full language appears in 28 U.S.C. § 455.
What Carter has already done and what's at stake
Carter has appointed a monitor to check and verify the city's homelessness data and has warned he may require the city to cover attorneys' fees for the alliance and other intervenors. The federal docket reflects a series of compliance orders and an attorneys' fees memorandum that have fueled the latest round of legal skirmishes, according to the Central District of California docket. In a separate move this month, a federal order directed the city to pay roughly $1.8 million tied to reporting failures, a legal bill with significant political and budget implications for Los Angeles' homelessness strategy, as reported by the Daily Journal.
What happens next turns on two fronts: whether the Ninth Circuit sees enough to justify reassigning the case and whether Carter continues to press ahead in the district court while that request is pending. Either path could slow the settlement's encampment clearings and housing deadlines, inflate litigation costs and complicate the city's efforts to keep up with federal requirements. City officials, plaintiffs and homelessness advocates will be watching the appeals court closely as the high-stakes battle over who gets to police City Hall's promises plays out.
