Ardgall v. City of Sausalito
- Edward Chen
- 3:22-cv-04722
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ardgall v. City of Sausalito, Judge Chen granted Madison Ardgall’s fee-waiver application but denied her temporary restraining-order and preliminary-injunction motion without prejudice.
Madison Ardgall, the City of Sausalito and the other defendants, and the U.S. Marshals Office for service of the summons and complaint.
What happened
In Ardgall v. City of Sausalito, Madison Ardgall asked to proceed without paying court fees and sought an emergency order stopping the defendants from taking certain actions. The court reviewed her financial affidavit and granted permission to proceed without paying those fees.
The court denied Ardgall’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, but did so without prejudice, meaning the ruling did not bar a later request. The court said she did not have a constitutional claim merely because the defendants had not provided housing or helped her find housing, and noted that she had not been arrested or appeared likely to be arrested for unlawful camping.
Judge Edward M. Chen also ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint because Ardgall raised a claim involving Martin v. Boise. The court reminded the City and its agents to consider that decision’s rule concerning arrests of homeless people sleeping outdoors on public property when no alternative shelter is available.
The detailed version
- Ardgall v. City of Sausalito · No. 3:22-cv-04722
- Edward Chen
- Aug. 23, 2022
Motions and ruling
The court addressed two matters: Madison Ardgall’s application to proceed without paying court fees and her motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. A temporary restraining order is an emergency order that can provide short-term relief; a preliminary injunction is a court order that can remain in effect while a case continues.
The court reviewed Ardgall’s financial affidavit and granted her application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning she could proceed without paying the filing fees. Because she raised a claim implicating Martin v. Boise, the court ordered the U.S. Marshals Office to serve the summons and complaint on the defendants.
The court denied Ardgall’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, without prejudice. The court stated that it was not unsympathetic to her situation, including her reported health problems and bad leg, but concluded that she did not have a constitutional claim simply because the defendants had not provided housing or assistance finding housing. Regarding possible arrest for unlawful daytime or overnight camping under Resolution No. 6009, the court noted that Ardgall had not been arrested and that there did not appear to be a threat that she would be arrested.
Martin v. Boise
The court stated that the City and its agents should remain mindful of Martin v. Boise’s holding concerning arrests of homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors on public property when no alternative shelter is available. The opinion did not grant the requested emergency relief based on that reminder.
Disposition
The application to proceed without paying court fees was granted. The motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was denied without prejudice. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 2 and 3.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.