Prado v. City of Berkeley

Background

Yesica Prado and other plaintiffs filed a complaint and an emergency request for injunctive relief against the City of Berkeley. The opinion states that the plaintiffs were homeless and living in tents and vehicles around 8th and Harrison in Berkeley, California. They alleged that the City notified them on September 1 that they would be forced to relocate on September 4 as part of a “Health Hazard and Emergency Abatement.” They further alleged that conducting the abatement over the holiday weekend limited their access to storage, housing services, and court assistance. Some plaintiffs had disabilities.

The plaintiffs alleged that the City’s decision violated their constitutional rights, including by placing them in a state-created danger in violation of due process. No response from the City had been filed when the order was issued. The court understood, based on representations from plaintiffs’ counsel, that the abatement had not occurred as of 9:30 p.m. on September 4.

Temporary restraining order

A temporary restraining order is emergency relief that temporarily prevents specified conduct. The court applied the four factors for this relief: likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, the balance of equities, and the public interest. The court found that the plaintiffs made a threshold showing of likely success on at least some claims. It also found potential loss of personal property, community, and safety to be irreparable harm, and determined that the public interest favored preventing community members, including unhoused people, from being endangered or separated from their homes and community without cause.

The court granted the application for a temporary restraining order. Until further order, the City, its employees and agents, and anyone acting with or for the City were restrained and enjoined from conducting an abatement of the area surrounding 8th and Harrison in Berkeley. The order became effective immediately and stated that it would expire on September 15, 2023, at approximately 5:00 p.m. Pacific time, unless a further order based on good cause was entered. The order set deadlines for the City’s opposition and the plaintiffs’ reply and left it to the assigned judge to decide whether a hearing was necessary or whether the briefing schedule should be changed.

Proceeding without filing fees and service

The court granted Yesica Prado’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning she could proceed without prepaying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to issue a summons. The U.S. Marshal was directed to serve the defendants without prepayment of fees, and proof of service was due by September 8, 2023. Because no address had been provided for Prado, the Clerk was directed to email the order to her counsel, who was also directed to email a copy to the defendant.

Disposition

The order states that it terminated Docket Numbers 2 and 7. It granted the temporary restraining order and granted Prado’s fee-waiver application. It did not finally resolve the underlying constitutional claims. The order was signed by Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Judge, who stated that she was acting as duty judge pending reassignment.