Mcloud v. County of Sonoma et.al.

Background

Seven plaintiffs representing themselves filed an action against the County of Sonoma, the City of Santa Rosa, and several individual employees. The plaintiffs alleged that they were unhoused residents of part of the Joe Rodota Regional Trail in Santa Rosa, California. They alleged that Sonoma County Regional Park Rangers served eviction notices requiring them to relocate by July 26, 2022, or face possible citation, arrest, or criminal prosecution. The plaintiffs said they had not been offered alternative shelter and were concerned that their property would be destroyed or not properly stored.

The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction preventing the defendants from removing them from the trail. On July 25, the court issued a temporary restraining order, or TRO, to preserve the existing situation until the earliest available hearing. After that hearing, the court directed the defendants to provide a more complete response with declarations and evidence. The defendants asked the court to dissolve the TRO so they could resume clearing the trail, while the plaintiffs argued that the order remained necessary for their protection.

Legal standard

The court explained that a TRO and a preliminary injunction use substantially the same four-part test. The party seeking relief must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without the order, that the balance of hardships favors the party seeking relief, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court also noted that preliminary relief is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing of entitlement.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the TRO was no longer warranted.

First, the plaintiffs could not show likely irreparable harm. At the hearing, Denise McCloud and Brian Baran acknowledged that the defendants had offered shelter options after the TRO was issued. The defendants reported that all seven plaintiffs had been offered and accepted temporary placements in hotel rooms, trailers at the Sonoma County Fairgrounds, or pallet homes at Los Guilucos Village. The court stated that the plaintiffs were no longer living in the encampment and had alternative shelter for at least 30 days. It therefore found that the plaintiffs would not suffer harm from the defendants’ continuing plans to clear the encampment.

Second, the court found that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions supporting emergency relief. The court discussed the plaintiffs’ reliance on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. City of Boise, which held that the Eighth Amendment bars criminally prosecuting people for sleeping outside on public property when they have no home or other shelter available. The court found that the record showed that none of the plaintiffs had been cited or arrested, that adequate shelter appeared to be available to all encampment residents, and that all seven plaintiffs had accepted temporary placements.

The court also found that the defendants had followed a protocol for clearing the encampment intended to comply with constitutional requirements. According to the record, county social workers assessed the needs of people on the trail and offered shelter before enforcement action. The defendants also provided written notice about clearing the encampment, property removal, and people’s legal rights and opportunity to relocate. Regarding personal property, the County had contracted for 90 days of storage and planned to provide information about retrieving stored items. The court stated that these procedures appeared to comply with legal requirements.

The plaintiffs also asserted a First Amendment free-assembly claim. The court recognized that the plaintiffs had formed a community on the trail but found that they had not cited authority showing that freedom of assembly allowed them to congregate anywhere without restriction. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not made the showing needed to continue the TRO on any of their claims.

Third, the court found that the balance of hardships did not favor the plaintiffs. It said the issue was not whether the defendants’ policy was ideal, but whether the Constitution prohibited the defendants from carrying out a policy intended to balance the plaintiffs’ rights with the public’s rights to access and use the trail. The court found no compelling basis in the record to replace the defendants’ judgment, particularly because the plaintiffs had been offered and accepted shelter.

Disposition and next steps

The court VACATED the temporary restraining order entered on July 25, 2022. It scheduled a telephonic hearing for August 18, 2022, on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction before the stated 30-day shelter period expired. The court said no further briefing was necessary at that point. It also stated that, because the plaintiffs were not represented by counsel, the case was not a class action and each plaintiff had to pursue only that person’s own case and appear at the hearing.