Reed v. City of Emeryville

Background

Jon Reed, Laura Berry, Frank Eugene Moore III, and Gabriel Smithson lived at the Ashby/Shellmound encampment in Emeryville, California. Where Do We Go Berkeley, an organization made up of homeless and housing-insecure people and advocates, also sued. The defendants were the City of Emeryville, Mayor Dianne Martinez, and City Manager Christine Daniel.

The encampment had existed for at least two years. At the time of the opinion, it had approximately four or five residents. The City and its contractors had given notices and conducted outreach concerning planned construction and the encampment's closure. The City said the encampment had to be cleared so construction could proceed safely, including construction of fencing, a second access route for construction and emergency vehicles, and other site work. The construction also affected a railroad quiet-zone safety project.

The plaintiffs had different concerns about entering the St. Vincent de Paul shelter. Reed said he had post-traumatic stress disorder and could not bring all his belongings or tolerate the shelter's crowded setting. Berry objected to the shelter's lack of permanence, limits on personal belongings, and congregate setting. Moore said he had paranoid schizophrenia and would not feel safe in a shelter with strangers and no privacy. Smithson said she had a compromised immune system and severe anxiety in crowds.

Procedural History and Legal Standard

The plaintiffs filed the case on April 18, 2021. On April 19, the duty judge issued a temporary restraining order stopping the defendants from removing people, belongings, and structures from the encampment and ordered expedited briefing on a preliminary injunction. After briefing and oral argument on May 3, Judge Orrick considered whether to continue that protection.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary court order that requires a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to immediate relief. The plaintiff generally must show a likely success on the claims, likely harm that cannot be repaired later without an injunction, that the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff, and that an injunction serves the public interest.

Plaintiffs' Claims and the Court's Analysis

The plaintiffs argued that the City's notice about clearing the encampment was inadequate and that removal or destruction of their personal property would violate constitutional due-process protections. They also argued that clearing the encampment and offering a congregate nighttime shelter would deliberately expose them and the surrounding community to COVID-19, creating a danger attributable to the government. In addition, Reed, Smithson, and Moore argued that the City violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide appropriate services, including packing and transportation assistance, and by offering a shelter setting that could trigger their disabilities.

On notice, the court said that the plaintiffs' earlier allegations of inadequate notice and threatened property destruction supported the temporary restraining order. But, even without relying on the City's assertions about earlier notice, the court found that the plaintiffs had received constitutionally adequate notice of the City's intent to clear the encampment. The court required the City to provide a process for removing and storing personal property for at least 90 days and allowing residents to access that property.

On the COVID-19 argument, the court distinguished decisions involving other encampments. It found a significant public-safety need tied to active housing construction, unlike cases where the justification for clearing an encampment was absent or weak. The court also relied on the City's plan to provide transportation and a guaranteed shelter bed, the planned storage of personal property, declining COVID-19 case rates in Alameda County, available vaccines, and COVID-19 precautions at St. Vincent de Paul. On that record, the court concluded that dispersing the four or five current residents did not show deliberate indifference to a significant government-created danger.

On the disability claim, the court stated that the plaintiffs had not shown enough support on the existing record for the requested injunction. The court noted that the plaintiffs might be able to state or prove a Title II Americans with Disabilities Act claim after discovery. The court nevertheless required the defendants to meet with plaintiffs' counsel at least twice a month to discuss longer-term housing options suited to each named plaintiff's situation and disabilities.

Ruling and Required Actions

Judge Orrick denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from clearing the encampment. The court ordered the following measures:

- By May 14, 2021, the plaintiffs had to tell the City through counsel whether they would move to another site, move while asking the City to store their property for 90 days, or go to St. Vincent de Paul with a guaranteed overnight bed while the City stored their property for 90 days. - By May 21, 2021, unless the City agreed otherwise or the court issued another order, the plaintiffs had to leave the encampment. The temporary restraining order would be lifted at 8:00 a.m. on May 22, 2021. - By May 10, 2021, the City had to provide written notice of the deadline and the procedures for handling property that residents could not move. The property-storage notice had to explain that qualifying property would be stored for at least 90 days, where it would be stored, and how residents could access it. Trash and dangerous items were excluded from that storage requirement. - The parties had to meet and discuss reasonable access to stored property, packing assistance, and possible relocation of property somewhere other than the City's storage facility or St. Vincent de Paul. - The City had to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination appointments and transportation for any plaintiff who had not been vaccinated and wanted vaccination. - The City had to provide transportation to St. Vincent de Paul for anyone at the encampment who chose that shelter. - The City had to make best efforts to locate long-term housing for the plaintiffs and meet with their counsel at least twice a month about opportunities for each named plaintiff.

The court stated that the plaintiffs could seek expedited relief again if COVID-19 conditions materially changed, shelter precautions became inadequate, or the City failed to comply with the court's orders.