Lewis v. City of Oakland

Background

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission sent Oakland a letter alleging that an encampment of unhoused individuals at Toll Plaza Beach violated section 66632(a) of the McAteer-Petris Act. The letter gave the City 35 days to resolve the alleged violation before fines began to accrue. The City appealed that deadline, stating that it did not yet have enough shelter capacity to close all encampments in high-sensitivity locations and anticipated having enough capacity by July 19, 2024.

The City’s outreach contractor, Operation Dignity, conducted site visits and engaged with encampment occupants. The City posted notices stating that the Public Works Department would clear and close the site. On July 5, attorney Andrea Henson asked the City to postpone the closure to give disabled residents time to find safe housing and store their belongings, make shelter offers accessible, and modify how the City communicated information about the closure and available assistance.

The plaintiffs filed an emergency request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction. The court initially ordered the City to halt removal of vehicles, recreational vehicles, and other structures in which the plaintiffs lived and not to disturb property the plaintiffs claimed. The court also ordered the plaintiffs to speak with Operation Dignity and disclose their disabilities so shelter options could be assessed. The court later extended that order through July 18, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.

ADA Claim

The plaintiffs relied on Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which bars public entities from excluding qualified people with disabilities from their services, programs, or activities because of disability. The ADA requires reasonable changes to policies or practices when necessary to avoid disability discrimination, unless the changes would fundamentally alter the program.

The City’s Encampment Management Policy classifies areas within 50 feet of a protected waterway as high-sensitivity areas. The policy provides that affected people will be offered shelter or alternative housing, or, in a high-sensitivity area, an opportunity to move voluntarily to a low-sensitivity area. The Toll Plaza Beach encampment was undisputedly within 50 feet of a protected waterway.

The plaintiffs requested accommodations including another tire and a gas card for Matthew Sims; more time and a safe place for Robbie Simpson to support his disabled father; nearby cabins for Michael Avery and Nicole Lewis so they could remain together and keep their emotional-support dogs; and more time and a place that would not trigger Frank Ernst’s post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety and where he could keep his emotional-support dog.

The City responded that it operated several temporary emergency shelter programs, including congregate shelter, community cabins, recreational-vehicle parking, transitional housing, and shelters with specialized criteria. The City said that long-term or transitional housing was not guaranteed and that placement could take up to two weeks after a person was matched through systems the City did not control.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success or raised serious questions on the merits of their ADA claim. At the hearing, the City represented that it had offered each plaintiff temporary shelter accommodating their disabilities as much as possible under the City’s policy and available resources. The City said it would provide Matthew Sims a fourth tire for his recreational vehicle. Michael Avery and Nicole Lewis had been offered a cabin together or separate cabins, although the City could not guarantee separate cabins at the same site. Frank Ernst had been offered a cabin at Wood Street but said he could not accept it because individuals living there had threatened him. Robbie and David Simpson had been told that an recreational-vehicle space and a cabin for one person were available, and the City was exploring how to accommodate them.

The court understood the plaintiffs’ desire to preserve their community but concluded that requiring the City to provide the requested arrangements could fundamentally alter its policy. Because the plaintiffs had not raised serious questions on the ADA claim, the court did not decide irreparable harm or whether an injunction would serve the public interest.

State-Created-Danger Claim

The plaintiffs also relied on the state-created-danger doctrine. That doctrine can impose liability when government action affirmatively places a person in danger, the injury is foreseeable, and officials deliberately disregard a known danger. The plaintiffs argued that evicting them from the encampment without genuine accessible alternatives would create dangers because they relied on one another for mutual support.

The court stated that it did not have discretion to allow the Toll Plaza Beach encampment to remain and that the City appeared to have followed its encampment policy in deciding to clear it. Although the plaintiffs would likely face additional dangers after losing their community, the court found that they had not shown at this stage that the City acted with deliberate indifference to those dangers. The court therefore found no serious questions on the merits of this claim and did not reach irreparable harm or the public-interest issue for it.

Ruling

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to extend the current TRO and denied their request for a preliminary injunction. The existing TRO remained in effect through July 18, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. The City was authorized to begin clearing the encampment on July 19, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., and was ordered to continue working with the plaintiffs to offer available shelter that best accommodated their disabilities.