Blain v. California Department of Transportation

Background

The plaintiffs, individuals experiencing homelessness who lived at the Wood Street encampment, sued Caltrans, the City of Oakland, and other defendants after Caltrans planned to close the encampment and remove residents, their possessions, and their structures. Judge Orrick previously issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) because the plaintiffs had received only five days’ warning even though many had lived there for years, and the state had not presented concrete plans for alternative shelter.

The earlier TRO prevented Caltrans from carrying out the planned closure and required the parties to participate in discussions before Magistrate Judge Robert Illman about shelter and services. During the following weeks, the parties discussed an Oakland plan involving phased closure, shelter spaces, outreach, possible transportation to family or friends, specialized housing, and storage of belongings.

The opinion also notes that the Governor asked the court to dismiss him based on immunity from suit. The court said that request would be considered later with the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss; it did not decide that request in this order.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a preliminary injunction requires a showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a balance of equities favoring the plaintiff, and consistency with the public interest. A TRO uses the same standard. The court may also issue an injunction when there are serious questions about the merits and the balance of hardships strongly favors the plaintiff, if the other requirements are met.

The plaintiffs’ constitutional theory was based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process protection and the state-created-danger doctrine. That doctrine can apply when state action affirmatively places a person in danger and officials act with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger.

Analysis

The court first ruled on sovereign immunity. It held that Caltrans, as a state agency, was immune from the suit to the extent the TRO applied directly against the agency. The court immediately dissolved the TRO to that extent. It held, however, that the suit could proceed against the Caltrans director and subordinate officials because the plaintiffs were challenging the constitutionality of their actions and those officials had a sufficiently direct connection to the challenged conduct.

The court then concluded that changed circumstances justified dissolving the TRO on a staggered schedule. The original concern was that removing residents after only a few days’ warning, without adequate shelter plans, could expose them to dangers they otherwise would not face. By the time of this order, more than five weeks had passed since the first notice, and nearly two months would have passed before the first closure stage. The court found that this substantially reduced the danger associated with inadequate notice.

The court also found that the balance of equities and public-interest considerations favored closure after the additional delay. It cited roughly 200 fires at the encampment over two years, including a fire that killed an individual, fires that damaged vehicles and structures, hazardous waste and debris, and the encampment’s proximity to a highway and a wastewater treatment plant with flammable oxygen facilities. The court noted that twelve additional fires had occurred since the TRO was issued.

The court considered Oakland’s proposed plan to be imperfect but better than the alternatives. The plan contemplated at least 40 immediately available shelter spaces, a future cabin community for 50 people, outreach by Oakland and Alameda County, assistance for people wishing to return to family or friends, specialized housing in some circumstances, and storage of belongings for 90 days. The court ruled that the defendants’ obligations would not continue indefinitely when a person declined a valid shelter offer, and it clarified that the plan did not require shelter offers to every person at Wood Street.

Disposition and required actions

The court adopted Oakland’s plan with modifications. It denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It granted the motion to dissolve the TRO in stages:

- The TRO was dissolved immediately to the extent it prevented Caltrans from removing debris, but not individuals, possessions, or structures. - On September 7, 2022, at noon, the TRO was to be dissolved as to the first closure area. - On September 21, 2022, at noon, it was to be dissolved as to the areas covered by the first and second closure stages. - On October 5, 2022, at noon, it was to be dissolved entirely to permit the third closure stage.

The court permitted Caltrans to post closure notices two days before the September 7, September 21, and October 5 dates. It ordered Oakland and Alameda County to conduct outreach before scheduled removals, coordinate their efforts, and commit resources to contact each removed individual when reasonably possible. The order did not require shelter for every person removed.

When Caltrans removed a vehicle, it was required either to return the vehicle to its possessor or, if that was not feasible, securely maintain it for at least 30 days so the possessor could retrieve it. Oakland and Alameda County were ordered to coordinate in good faith with Caltrans on that process. The court also clarified or modified the TRO so that it did not prevent reasonable efforts to stop the tapping of electrical boxes.