Hellard v. City of San Rafael

Background

James Hellard, representing himself, sued the City of San Rafael, the California Department of Transportation, Lynn Murphy, and San Rafael Police Sergeant Carl Huber under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. Hellard claimed that the City had stolen his car, forced him to live in a City-operated homeless encampment under Highway 101, exposed him to COVID-19 and unsafe conditions, and caused permanent hearing loss and respiratory illness.

Hellard asked the court to prohibit the City from forcing him to stay in the encampment and to allow him to camp safely outside it. The City described the encampment as a temporary Service Support Area for unhoused people who had been living on CalTrans park-and-ride lots. The record indicated that CalTrans intended to clear the encampment in August 2022. Murphy and Huber stated that residents, including Hellard, were not required to move there and could leave at any time.

The City’s camping regulation states that it does not prohibit camping on public property when no alternative shelter is available, although the City Manager may prohibit camping in specific parks for public health, safety, or welfare reasons. Huber stated that the San Rafael Police Department had not cited or arrested anyone for camping on public property within the City since the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 decision in Martin v. Boise. He also stated that the department had no record of Hellard being cited or arrested for camping on public property within City limits.

Temporary Restraining Order Standard

A temporary restraining order is emergency relief that is not automatically available. The person requesting it must generally show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without the order, a favorable balance of hardships, and that the order would serve the public interest. Under the Ninth Circuit’s “serious questions” approach, a court may also grant relief when serious legal questions exist and the hardships sharply favor the requesting party, provided the other requirements are met.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Hellard had not shown that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm without a temporary restraining order. The record indicated that no defendant required him to live in the encampment. Hellard also had not shown that the City was likely to arrest him if he camped elsewhere or that he had been arrested for doing so.

The court further found that Hellard had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or serious legal questions on which the balance of hardships sharply favored him. Regarding his Eighth Amendment claims, the court noted that the City’s anti-camping ordinance exempts unsheltered people and that nothing indicated Hellard had been or was likely to be arrested for violating the ordinance.

Hellard also relied on the state-created-danger doctrine for his due-process claims. That doctrine can impose liability when the government affirmatively places someone in danger while deliberately ignoring a known or obvious danger. Based on the record, including Hellard’s statement that he had lived under the freeway before the Service Support Area existed, the court concluded that he had not shown that any defendant created or exposed him to a danger he otherwise would not have faced.

Disposition

The court denied Hellard’s application for a temporary restraining order. Because it found that he had not established likely irreparable harm or a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, it did not address the remaining requirements for emergency relief.