Berkeley Homeless Union v. City of Berkeley

Background

The Berkeley Homeless Union asked the court to stop the City of Berkeley from closing the encampment at Ohlone Park. The requested injunction would have barred the closure and removal of Union members and other campers, and would have barred destruction of campers’ property without legal process. The complaint named the City, City employees Paul Buddenhagen, Thomas Gregory, Peter Radu, Okeya Vance, and unnamed defendants.

The City posted a closure notice on May 14, 2025, stating that closure could begin on May 28. The parties later agreed that the City would not clear the encampment until the court ruled on the preliminary-injunction request. The Union also separately asked the court to require a settlement conference before a magistrate judge.

Legal standard

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary court order issued before final judgment. The plaintiff must generally show a likely success on the claims, likely irreparable harm without the order, that the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff, and that the order would serve the public interest. Under the Ninth Circuit’s alternative standard, a plaintiff may show serious legal questions instead of likely success if the hardship balance strongly favors the plaintiff and the other requirements are met.

The court noted that the defendants challenged the Union’s organizational or associational standing, but declined to decide those issues because the Union had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success or serious legal questions on any claim.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

The Union argued that the City failed to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled people living at the encampment. The requests described in the record included accessible and non-congregate hotel rooms, longer hotel stays, permission to remain in the park until adequate shelter or housing became available, help transporting belongings, waiver of third-party medical verification, delayed enforcement, assistance with housing applications, and transportation or relocation support.

The court found that the Union had not shown serious legal questions about whether the denied requests were reasonable accommodations required by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court relied in part on the principle that the Act requires reasonable changes to existing public programs but does not require a public entity to create entirely new services or fundamentally change a program. The court also found that the Union had not adequately supported its argument that the City had failed to engage in the required interactive process.

The record showed that City employee Thomas Gregory visited Ohlone Park, spoke with campers, responded to the accommodation requests, requested medical verification, offered some extensions and packing assistance, and identified City or outside resources for shelter and other support. The Union did not provide sufficient legal support or evidence to overcome that record, according to the court.

Fourth Amendment claim

The Union argued that the City had a practice of failing to follow its property-storage policy during encampment closures. The posted notice identified property that would not be stored, property that could be stored for up to 90 days, and ways to reclaim stored property.

The court found the Union’s claim speculative. The court said that the lack of reported storage events or receipts did not reasonably establish a custom of failing to follow the policy, because it could also mean that people removed their property after receiving notice. The Union also had not alleged facts specifically showing how the City treated the property of its members living at Ohlone Park.

Fourteenth Amendment state-created-danger claim

The Union argued that closing the encampment would expose its members to foreseeable dangers by separating them from bathrooms, water, food, showers, and other services. The court explained that a state-created-danger claim requires affirmative government conduct that places people in a worse position, exposes them to an actual and particularized danger, and foreseeably causes harm. It also requires deliberate indifference, meaning that officials knew their actions created an unreasonable risk and ignored that risk.

The court found that the group of people living at Ohlone Park was sufficiently specific for purposes of the particularized-danger issue. But it concluded that the Union had not shown that closing the encampment would place its members in greater danger than they otherwise would have faced, or that the danger was obvious and foreseeable under the governing standard. The court also found insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference. The City had provided notice, extended one member’s compliance deadline, offered packing assistance, and agreed to delay clearing the encampment while the motion was pending.

Balance of hardships

The court found that the balance of hardships did not strongly favor the Union even if the Union had raised serious legal questions. The defendants submitted evidence that the encampment limited public use of the park, affected neighborhood safety, and interfered with infrastructure work. The evidence described reported harassment, theft, assault, drug use, construction hazards, police calls, and other incidents.

The court also concluded that the Union’s requested injunction was broad rather than narrow. It would have blocked closure without a time limit or clear conditions until the City met housing-related conditions determined by the Union and its members. The court stated that the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit had not adopted the Union’s proposed constitutional requirement that a city provide specified shelter or another public encampment site before clearing an encampment.

Rulings

The court DENIED the Berkeley Homeless Union’s request for a preliminary injunction. The court stated that if the City renewed efforts to remove campers from Ohlone Park, it must provide a new compliant notice to vacate at least 72 hours before removal and otherwise follow its policies and procedures.

The court also DENIED the Union’s request for a mandatory settlement conference before a magistrate judge. The court found that the administrative motion did not comply with Local Rule 7-11 because it lacked either a party stipulation or a declaration explaining why a stipulation could not be obtained.

The court set a case management conference for July 8, 2025, and directed the parties to file a joint case management statement by July 3, 2025.