Rahman v. City Of Oakland
- James Donato
- 3:22-cv-05038
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Rahman v. City of Oakland, Judge Donato granted a temporary restraining order blocking the planned encampment closure and removals.
The order protects Rahman and other homeless individuals at the Derby Avenue encampment from the planned closure and related removals. It binds the City of Oakland and the City personnel, attorneys, and participating persons or entities covered by the order, while allowing unrelated lawful actions.
What happened
In Joseph Rahman v. City of Oakland, Rahman, a homeless person at a Derby Avenue encampment in Oakland, sought an order stopping the planned closure of the encampment and removal of people and possessions.
The court granted a temporary restraining order without notice to preserve the current situation until Oakland could respond. The order bars the City, its covered personnel, and people acting with them from closing the encampment or carrying out the planned removal of people, possessions, and structures. It does not bar unrelated actions, such as removing possessions while suppressing a fire or making a lawful arrest for unrelated reasons.
Judge James Donato directed immediate service of the case papers on Oakland and set a process for considering whether the order should remain in place while the court considers a preliminary injunction. The court also granted Rahman permission to file electronically.
The detailed version
- Rahman v. City Of Oakland · No. 3:22-cv-05038
- James Donato
- Sept. 6, 2022
Background
Joseph Rahman, described in the order as a homeless person at a Derby Avenue encampment site in Oakland, California, asked for a temporary restraining order against agencies and officials of the City of Oakland. He sought to prevent the planned closure of the encampment and the removal of him and his possessions.
Ruling
The court granted a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). The court said temporary relief was warranted to preserve the status quo until the City appeared and responded. Because of the timing, the order was issued without notice.
The order applies to the City of Oakland; its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and people and entities acting in active concert or participation with them. It restrains them from proceeding with the planned removal of people, personal possessions, and structures from the Derby Avenue encampment; closing the encampment; or otherwise removing homeless individuals from it.
The order does not prohibit particularized removals or other actions unrelated to the planned closure, including lawfully removing possessions while suppressing a fire or carrying out a lawful arrest for reasons unrelated to the planned closure.
Further proceedings
The Clerk was directed to immediately issue a summons, and the U.S. Marshal was directed to serve Oakland with the summons, complaint, motion, and order. The Clerk was also directed to electronically serve the same materials on the Oakland City Attorney. Oakland could file a response of no more than 15 pages by noon on September 9, 2022, addressing whether the temporary restraining order should remain in place until the court could decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction. The court stated that a briefing schedule for a preliminary injunction would be set if appropriate at the hearing.
The court granted Rahman's motion for permission to file electronically and directed that his email address be added to the electronic docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.