Rahman v. City Of Oakland

Background

Joseph Rahman, representing himself, sued the City of Oakland under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rahman lives in a van at a homeless encampment near Derby Avenue in Oakland. The encampment is within 100 feet of Latitude High School, an area Oakland designated as a “high-sensitivity area.” Rahman challenged Oakland’s plan to close the encampment and requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction, which are court orders intended to prevent action while a case continues.

The court had previously granted a brief TRO so Rahman could serve Oakland with his filings. Oakland then responded, and the court held a remote hearing. Oakland initially argued that Rahman’s claims were moot because he had moved his van. Rahman told the court that he had moved it and then returned. A city official confirmed that the van was again parked near the school entrance.

Court’s analysis

The court declined to find the case moot because the planned closure remained an impending action that could harm Rahman. The court then applied the standards for a TRO and preliminary injunction, which require considering likely success on the claims, irreparable harm, the balance of hardships, and the public interest.

The court concluded that Rahman was not likely to prevail on his civil-rights claims. His complaint alleged that closing the encampment could destroy his personal property, including his inoperable van; that Oakland did not provide adequate shelter alternatives; and that he could face criminal penalties because he was homeless. He asserted claims under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The court relied on Oakland’s representations that property removed from the encampment would be stored for 90 days and that notices would explain how to retrieve it. Oakland also represented that its policies prohibit enforcing ordinances or policies that criminalize the status of being homeless, and that Rahman would not be cited or arrested merely because he lacked housing. Oakland further represented that a bed would be available to Rahman at St. Vincent de Paul congregate housing for 72 hours.

The court noted that Rahman had received several housing referrals, which he appeared to have declined because of the difficulty of finding parking for his van. Rahman also indicated that he could move the van, although doing so was not easy. The court found that the inconvenience of moving or towing the van did not amount to irreparable harm because the vehicle could be recovered and monetary losses could be addressed later. The court also found that the hardships and public-interest factors did not support an injunction, including because Oakland’s shelter offers partly offset the disruption and the public had an interest in keeping access to the high school unobstructed.

The court separately considered Rahman’s suggestion that Oakland’s encampment policy was unconstitutionally vague. It found that, even reading his filing liberally because he was representing himself, the policy clearly applied to encampments on Oakland public property, including people living in vehicles, and identified property within 100 feet of a high school as a high-sensitivity area. The court found that Oakland’s discretion to allow some encampments did not support a vagueness challenge.

Disposition

The court dissolved the TRO entered on September 6, 2022, effective at 12:00 p.m. on September 19, 2022, giving Rahman additional time to arrange for his vehicle and other possessions. Oakland could then close the Derby Avenue encampment. The court declined to order Oakland to identify nearby low-sensitivity areas with available parking, although it encouraged Oakland to share information about such areas if it knew of them. If Oakland removed Rahman’s vehicle, the court directed Oakland to maintain it securely for at least 30 days so Rahman would have an opportunity to retake possession. The request for a preliminary injunction was denied. Judge James Donato did not make a final ruling on the ultimate liability issues in the civil-rights lawsuit.