Blain v. California Department of Transportation

Background

The pro se plaintiffs asked to modify a temporary restraining order (TRO), an emergency court order, that Judge William H. Orrick had issued in the case. The existing TRO restrained the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) from closing an encampment on Caltrans-owned land near Wood Street in Oakland. The plaintiffs live on Caltrans’s land.

The plaintiffs asked the court to expand the TRO to stop the City of Oakland from closing an encampment on a neighboring parcel owned by Oakland rather than Caltrans. They submitted a declaration stating that Oakland had posted notices saying it would clear and close its encampment from August 15 through August 18, 2022.

Plaintiffs’ asserted claims

The plaintiffs argued that Oakland’s actions would likely violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause under the state-created-danger doctrine, the Fourth Amendment by unreasonably seizing property without storing or returning it, the Eighth Amendment by barring people from residing at the encampment without offering alternative shelter, and the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the plaintiffs had not shown standing, meaning a personal, concrete injury that a court can address. The plaintiffs acknowledged that none of them lived on the land subject to Oakland’s proposed actions; all lived on the adjoining Caltrans property. Because of that, they could not show a concrete and particularized risk of injury from Oakland’s conduct. The possibility that some people might move from Oakland’s land to Caltrans’s land did not, by itself, establish a concrete injury to the named plaintiffs.

The court also explained that the plaintiffs had not yet filed the amended complaint they said would add people living at Wood Street. The court found that the circumstances did not justify granting relief to people who were not parties to the case, particularly because the request concerned a different defendant, a different parcel of land, potentially different concerns, and partly different legal claims. The court also noted differences in Oakland’s notice and its prior representation that it offers shelter to everyone when it clears an encampment.

Disposition

The court denied the request to expand or modify the TRO. Because the plaintiffs lacked standing, the court did not address the traditional factors for granting a TRO or injunction. The order states that the TRO application is denied.