Naretto v. City of Petaluma

Background

The court had first issued a temporary restraining order on October 5, 2021. It temporarily barred the defendants from closing the encampment at Steamer Landing Park, evicting campers, seizing or disposing of their property, or arresting them for violating the anti-camping ordinance. The court later extended that order and converted it into a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is temporary court-ordered relief issued before the case is finally decided.

The defendants asked the court to dissolve, or end, the preliminary injunction. The court held a hearing on May 12, 2022 and focused on the facts as they existed at that time, including which plaintiffs still had standing to seek preliminary relief. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff have a sufficient personal or organizational connection to the dispute.

Changes in the Case

The six individual plaintiffs named in the original complaint and first amended complaint had either left the encampment or obtained individualized housing. The court had therefore recognized that their claims were moot and dismissed them from the case. The court also dismissed organizational plaintiff Homeless Action! (HA!) for failing to allege enough facts to establish associational or organizational standing, but allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

The Second Amended Complaint added individual plaintiff Todd Simone and new allegations intended to support HA!’s organizational standing. The defendants also reported more than 140 police-service calls and more than 30 fire-service calls at Steamer Landing Park during the seven months the injunction had been in place, along with continuing concerns about pollution of the adjacent river.

Legal Standard

A party seeking to modify or dissolve an injunction must show a significant change in facts or law. If that showing is made, the court then determines whether the change warrants dissolving the injunction. That second inquiry uses the same factors applied when deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, but the party seeking dissolution bears the burden.

Those factors are whether the party seeking relief is likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief, whether the balance of hardships favors that party, and whether an injunction serves the public interest. The court also recognized an alternative standard involving serious questions on the merits, a sharply favorable balance of hardships, likely irreparable harm, and the public interest.

Court’s Analysis

The court said that the original injunction had been based on the six named plaintiffs’ serious questions about the merits of an Eighth Amendment claim under Martin v. City of Boise and on the balance of hardships favoring them. Because none of those named plaintiffs remained in the case, the basis for the injunction was no longer present.

As to HA!, the court found that most of the alleged harm concerned resources directed to unhoused people generally, whether or not they were staying at Steamer Landing Park. The court said that HA!’s allegations about an increased burden if people were dispersed might be enough to establish organizational standing, but did not establish irreparable injury or show that the balance of hardships sharply favored HA!, particularly in light of the law-enforcement and health problems identified by the City.

As to Mr. Simone, the court stated that the record suggested he had previously been provided shelter that was adequate under Martin but could not follow the rules needed to keep that shelter through no fault of the City. The court concluded that, even if he might suffer irreparable injury, he was not entitled to a preliminary injunction on the record before it.

Order

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. It ordered that the injunction at Steamer Landing Park be dissolved effective June 10, 2022, allowing encampment residents time to prepare and the defendants time to conduct the outreach they represented they would undertake.

The defendants represented that they would notify encampment residents, work with community partners for approximately one to three weeks to offer housing alternatives, make diligent efforts to transition residents to shelter or other housing, and use an assessment tool for people with disabilities to evaluate needs and identify accommodations or services. The court ordered the defendants to submit a status report and updated chart concerning their outreach and housing offers by June 3, 2022. The court also extended the plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint; the opinion does not decide that motion.