Blaike v. El-Tawansy
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:22-cv-04669
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Blaike v. El Tiwansy, Judge Seeborg granted a temporary restraining order preventing closure and planned removals at a San Rafael encampment.
The homeless individuals living at the San Rafael Highway 101 Service Support Area encampment, and the state and City of San Rafael agencies and officials subject to the order.
What happened
In Blaike v. El Tiwansy, homeless plaintiffs living at an encampment under Highway 101 in San Rafael asked the court to stop its planned closure. They said the closure was imminent.
The court granted the temporary restraining order without notice because the closure was scheduled for the next morning and the plaintiffs appeared to have received notice only shortly beforehand. The order temporarily prevents the defendants and people acting with them from removing people, belongings, or structures, closing the encampment, or otherwise removing homeless individuals.
The order schedules a hearing on August 19, 2022, about whether the restraint should continue while the court considers a preliminary injunction. Judge Richard Seeborg also ordered immediate service of the lawsuit and related papers on the defendants.
The detailed version
- Blaike v. El-Tawansy · No. 3:22-cv-04669
- Richard Seeborg
- Aug. 15, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs are homeless individuals living at an encampment under Highway 101 in San Rafael known as the Service Support Area. They sought a temporary restraining order against agencies and officials of the State of California and the City of San Rafael. The order does not identify every agency or official by name in the text provided.
The plaintiffs asked the court to prevent an imminent closure of the encampment. The court noted that the closure was scheduled for the next morning at 7:30 a.m. and that the plaintiffs appeared to have received notice on an abrupt timeline. The plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers and had asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
Ruling
The court held that the plaintiffs had met the standard for temporary relief designed to preserve the existing situation until the defendants could appear and be heard. The court therefore granted the motion for a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), without notice to the defendants beforehand.
The order applies to the named defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and people acting together with them. They are restrained from proceeding with the planned removal of people, personal possessions, or structures from the encampment; closing the encampment; or otherwise removing homeless individuals from the encampment.
The order does not prohibit specific removals or other actions unrelated to the planned closure, including lawfully removing possessions while suppressing a fire or making a lawful arrest for reasons unrelated to the planned closure.
Further proceedings
The court set a videoconference hearing for August 19, 2022, to consider whether the temporary restraining order should remain in place while the court determines whether to issue a preliminary injunction. Defendants could file responses addressing only whether the temporary order should continue. The court also ordered immediate issuance and service of the summonses, complaint, motion, and order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.