DeFigh v. City of Oakland

Background

The pro se plaintiffs were residents and former residents of the former homeless encampment at 1707 Wood Street in Oakland, California. They sought a temporary restraining order, which is an emergency court order intended to prevent conduct while a case proceeds. The plaintiffs asked the court to stop the City of Oakland’s ongoing eviction and closure of the encampment.

The motion alleged violations of the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights and the state-created-danger doctrine. The plaintiffs submitted sworn declarations stating that City workers and police officers were throwing away residents’ property, using a bulldozer unsafely, failing to store property, and tearing down structures.

Related Proceedings and Analysis

The court said the case was directly related to an earlier ongoing case involving other residents of the same encampment. In that earlier case, the court had initially granted emergency relief after finding serious questions about the merits of state-created-danger claims. The court later dissolved that relief after the City provided additional shelter beds.

The court also referred to an earlier request for emergency relief based on alleged Fourth Amendment violations, including claims that the City was destroying makeshift shelters and refusing to store certain belongings. The court had denied that request after finding that the City was providing shelter and storage for many belongings, towing vehicles to a secure location, and was not required to maintain or store makeshift shelters or a shipping container.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not presented new arguments or facts beyond those addressed in the earlier proceedings. For the same reasons given in those proceedings, it found no longer were there serious questions about the merits of the state-created-danger claims and determined that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on claims concerning destruction of property. The court also noted that residents had received significant notice of the closure and that the City had provided opportunities for shelter and storage.

Ruling

Applying the standard for emergency injunctive relief, the court concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The court therefore denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. The order was signed by United States District Judge William H. Orrick.