Mcloud v. County of Sonoma et.al.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-04284
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Mcloud v. County of Sonoma, Judge Gilliam granted a temporary restraining order barring a planned trail clearing until a hearing.
The order protected the plaintiffs and other people then residing on the Joe Rodota Regional Trail from the planned clearing and eviction until the scheduled hearing, and restricted the defendants from carrying out that action during that period.
What happened
In Denise Mcloud v. County of Sonoma, the pro se plaintiffs said they were unhoused residents living on part of the Joe Rodota Regional Trail in Santa Rosa. They said county notices required them to leave by 8:00 a.m. on July 26, 2022, or face arrest, and alleged that they had not been offered alternative shelter and that park rangers had destroyed property.
The court found that removing the plaintiffs and their belongings before the defendants could respond would cause immediate and irreparable harm. Because of the timing, the court said the plaintiffs’ claims could effectively become moot before a hearing. The court therefore granted the temporary restraining order without waiting for the defendants to be heard.
The order only maintained the existing situation until the earliest possible hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order. It barred the defendants from clearing the trail and evicting people then living there. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. set the hearing for July 27, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.; the order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Mcloud v. County of Sonoma et.al. · No. 4:22-cv-04284
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 25, 2022
Background
The pro se plaintiffs filed a complaint and motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on July 25, 2022. They alleged that they were unhoused residents of part of the Joe Rodota Regional Trail in Santa Rosa, California. According to the complaint, Sonoma County Regional Park Rangers had issued notices requiring them to relocate by 8:00 a.m. on July 26 or be arrested. The plaintiffs also alleged that they had not been offered alternative shelter, that the defendants did not have genuine plans to store residents’ property, and that park rangers had destroyed property.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy generally requiring a clear showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, favorable balancing of the equities, and consistency with the public interest. For an order issued without written or oral notice, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) also requires specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the opposing party can be heard, along with an attorney’s written certification concerning notice efforts and why notice should not be required.
The court found that the plaintiffs clearly showed immediate and irreparable harm: they and their belongings could be removed from where they were living before the defendants could be served and heard. The court also noted that, because of the timing, the claims could effectively become moot before a hearing. Although the court was unsure how the attorney-certification requirement applied to pro se plaintiffs, it found that the requirements for relief without notice were met given the imminent action and resulting harm.
Ruling and effect
The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, solely to maintain the status quo until the earliest possible hearing on the merits of the temporary restraining order request. It enjoined the defendants from proceeding with the clearing and eviction of people then residing on the Joe Rodota Regional Trail until a hearing could be held. The court set that hearing for July 27, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., and did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.