Prado v. City of Berkeley

Background

The plaintiffs—Yesica Prado, Lucian Jeffords, Erin Spencer, and Angel Kennett—were unhoused and lived in or used an encampment in the area of Eighth and Harrison Streets in Berkeley. The City issued notices announcing an emergency abatement of part of the encampment. The court had temporarily barred City action through the September 27 hearing.

The affected area was later clarified as the portion of the encampment on Harrison Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets. Prado’s recreational vehicle was parked outside that area and therefore was not subject to the challenged abatement. The City stated that it would offer affected campers housing at the Super 8 Motel or Berkeley Inn, help move people and their belongings, store eligible property for up to 90 days, and provide comparable replacements for essential habitation items that could not safely be stored and had to be destroyed.

The City’s evidence described used syringes, raw sewage, rat burrows, accumulated debris, blocked sidewalks, combustible materials, and fire-code violations. The City’s Fire Department reported 29 fire-related incidents in the affected portion between January and August 2023. The plaintiffs asserted claims involving state-created danger, unreasonable search and seizure, disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law, and cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Preliminary-Injunction Standard

A preliminary injunction is temporary relief issued before a final decision. The plaintiffs had to show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, a favorable balance of hardships, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. Under the court’s sliding-scale approach, a strong showing on hardship could offset a weaker showing on likely success, but the plaintiffs still had to meet the applicable requirements.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their claims. They had, at most, raised serious questions about several issues. Those questions included whether the City needed to give plaintiffs time and support to relocate before abatement under the disability-discrimination claim; whether the City acted with deliberate indifference under the state-created-danger claim; and whether the plaintiffs received adequate notice before their property could be seized under the Fourth Amendment or due process protections.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown that the balance of hardships sharply favored them. The City’s representations about temporary housing, storage, moving assistance, and replacement items significantly reduced the likely harm to plaintiffs. In contrast, the court found sufficient evidence that delaying the abatement would impose substantial hardship because of the reported health and safety hazards.

The public-interest factor favored the City because the record showed a significant hazard that needed timely attention, although the court also recognized a public interest in protecting unhoused people from being endangered or separated from their homes and community without cause.

Disposition and Conditions

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and dissolved the temporary restraining order. It allowed the City to abate only the portion of the encampment on Harrison Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets, subject to these conditions:

- The City had to issue a new notice of abatement. - Abatement could not begin until plaintiffs received 72 hours’ notice, excluding weekend days. - The notice had to be publicly posted and placed on structures and vehicles in the affected area. - The notice had to identify the affected area, state the exact start date, estimate the duration, and state that people could return to camp there after abatement was complete. - The notice had to explain how campers could designate property for storage. - The City had to provide comparable replacements for essential habitation items that were destroyed because they were unsuitable for storage. - Jeffords’s recreational vehicle could not be moved or destroyed, although it could be cleaned or treated for pests. - The City had to provide housing at the Super 8 or Berkeley Inn at least during the abatement period. - The City had to help campers move themselves or their belongings to the offered housing or storage. - The offered housing had to permit one emotional-support animal.

The order stated that violating these conditions could be treated as violating the court’s order.