Deschamps v. City of Sausalito

Background

Philip Deschamps filed an amended complaint against the City of Sausalito and other defendants. The complaint asserted federal and state claims, including claims under the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, cruel and unusual punishment, state-created danger, unlawful seizure of property, and substantive due process.

The court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Although it stated that many claims appeared questionable, it found that some claims might be viable. The court cited allegations that the City took a cat carrier, litter box, and generator from Deschamps, and that the City arbitrarily prevented him from using space next to his encampment or constructing certain structures. The court ordered the amended complaint served, while expressly stating that the order did not prevent the defendants from challenging claims through a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

Temporary Restraining Order

A temporary restraining order is short-term court-ordered relief. The court applied the same standards used for a preliminary injunction: likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, the balance of hardships, and the public interest. It found that Deschamps had a fair legal position that the City was arbitrarily preventing him from using his own tent. The court noted that the tent appeared to fit on the designated platform, that there was no indication it created a health or safety hazard, and that the balance of hardships favored Deschamps.

Ruling

The court granted Deschamps’s request for a temporary restraining order in part. The City and those acting in concert with it were enjoined from taking down Deschamps’s tent, evicting him from the encampment based on his use of his own tent, or penalizing him for using it. The temporary restraining order was to remain in effect until March 24, 2022, when the court scheduled a continued hearing on the request.

The court did not grant relief concerning the additional structure because it had already been removed, Deschamps’s immediate need for it had been reduced by permission to use his own tent, and the City represented that it would provide a portable charging station. The court did, however, bar the defendants and those acting with them from disposing of property Deschamps had kept within or under that structure. It gave him reasonable time to move that property to his tent or platform, but prohibited him from adding to the accumulated property during that period.

Judge Edward M. Chen stated that the temporary restraining order was intended to give the parties an opportunity to work toward a settlement conference. The order disposed of Docket No. 14.