Blaike v. El-Tawansy

Background

Plaintiffs, who were proceeding without lawyers, were individuals experiencing homelessness who had lived for more than a year in an encampment in a Caltrans-owned park-and-ride lot beneath Highway 101 in San Rafael. The site was part of a temporary arrangement that allowed about 50 people to set up tents and store belongings and provided restrooms, device charging, garbage disposal, and other services. The City of San Rafael also offered case management and assistance locating permanent housing.

Caltrans and the City had planned to close the site by mid-August 2022. City officials notified residents about the closure and offered relocation to congregate or inpatient-treatment shelters, along with incentives for those who moved. On August 12, Caltrans posted a notice directing remaining residents to leave by 7:30 a.m. on August 16. Plaintiffs filed suit on August 15 against Caltrans, the City, state and local officials, and Barbier Security, a private security contractor for the City. They asserted ten claims under federal and state law, including claims involving unlawful seizure, discrimination based on race and disability, breach of contract, conspiracy, due process, and the First and Eighth Amendments.

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary-Injunction Standard

Plaintiffs asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop the clearing. The court had granted the temporary restraining order on August 15, pending a hearing and the defendants’ response. The court explained that both forms of relief generally require a plaintiff to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, a favorable balance of hardships, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court addressed only the likelihood-of-success requirement because plaintiffs did not satisfy it.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected plaintiffs’ state-created-danger theory. Plaintiffs argued that clearing the site would increase their risk of COVID-19, cut them off from service providers, and force them to live on the streets. The court found those risks too speculative and noted that the City had offered shelter. Although plaintiffs considered the shelter options inadequate, the court concluded that the offers showed an effort to reduce the harms of displacement and that plaintiffs had not shown inadequate COVID-19 safety measures.

The court also rejected plaintiffs’ claim under the Eighth Amendment based on Martin v. City of Boise. The court explained that Martin prevents criminal punishment for sleeping outdoors when homeless people lack access to alternative shelter, but does not prohibit a city from barring sleeping in a particular location. Here, the government sought to remove plaintiffs from one parking lot, not enforce a citywide ban on sleeping, and the court found that plaintiffs had access to alternative shelter.

As to the remaining claims, the court found that the alleged property seizure was contradicted by the official notice and Caltrans’s filings, which stated that property would be retained for 90 days. The court also found that plaintiffs had not pleaded enough facts to determine whether the clearing involved race- or disability-based discrimination. It stated that the breach-of-contract, conspiracy, and First Amendment claims likewise could not succeed on the merits.

Disposition

The court dissolved the temporary restraining order effective Friday, August 26, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. Because the complaint contained no allegations about Barbier Security’s role in clearing the encampment, the court specifically dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied the preliminary-injunction motion as to Barbier Security. The court urged the parties to work together to move plaintiffs into more permanent shelter, but the order did not enter a final judgment on the underlying claims.