Winslow v. The City of Oakland

Background

Ashley Hammond, Markaya Spikes, Vanessa Trinidad, Michelle Bustamante, and Ernie Winslow, whom the opinion collectively calls the plaintiffs, were experiencing homelessness and living at the High Street encampment in Oakland. The defendants were the City of Oakland, the Oakland Department of Public Works, the Oakland Police Department, Mayor Libby Schaaf, an assistant to the City Administrator, and ten unnamed defendants.

The City posted a notice on February 21, 2020, directing people to leave the site and remove their belongings. The notice stated that the City planned to close the encampment on March 3 and 4, 2020, and that Public Works crews would remove and store property left behind, although property considered unsafe or hazardous to store would be discarded.

Oakland had policies governing encampment closures. They required, among other things, at least 72 hours’ advance notice; allowing occupants to retrieve their belongings; limits on removing property while an occupant was present; photographs before cleanup; collection, labeling, and itemization of personal belongings; and storage of collected property for at least 90 days. The plaintiffs alleged that the City had not followed these policies during prior evictions and had destroyed or discarded their property.

Legal standard

A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary form of emergency relief. The plaintiffs had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favored them, and that an order served the public interest. The court described likelihood of success as the most important factor.

Eighth Amendment claim

The plaintiffs argued that the threatened removal violated the Eighth Amendment. The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that, when people experiencing homelessness have no available shelter, the government generally may not criminalize involuntary sitting, lying, or sleeping outdoors.

The court held that this principle did not establish a likely Eighth Amendment violation here because the threatened actions did not require arresting anyone. The court concluded that the Eighth Amendment did not give the plaintiffs a right to occupy public property indefinitely at their option. It therefore found that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on this claim.

Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim

The plaintiffs also claimed that removing or destroying their belongings without adequate procedures would violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The court explained that a person experiencing homelessness does not abandon property by leaving it temporarily unattended on a sidewalk. Before the government takes and destroys such property, it must use procedures that provide adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to protect the property.

The court noted that Oakland’s written procedures could provide those safeguards. But the plaintiffs alleged that the City had repeatedly failed to follow them during earlier evictions. Based on those allegations, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their due-process claim if the City cleared the encampment without complying with its existing policies.

Other injunction factors

The court found that clearing the encampment without following the policies could cause irreparable harm, including the loss of property and a possible constitutional violation. Although the court recognized the City’s health and safety interests, it determined that the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs when the City failed to follow its own procedures. The court also concluded that the public interest favored the plaintiffs because the order would not prevent the City from clearing the encampment in compliance with those policies.

Disposition

The order is titled an order granting in part and denying in part the request for a temporary restraining order. In its conclusion, the court stated that the plaintiffs had met their burden for an injunction against clearing the encampment in a manner that violated the City’s stated policies. The court ordered that the City may clean and clear the High Street encampment only if it fully complies with those policies. The court also stated that the defendants could file an opposition and that it would reconsider the order at that time.