Tassey v. California Department of Transportation

Background

Jesse Eugene Tassey, representing himself, filed a complaint for injunctive relief and an application for a temporary restraining order. The opinion states that Tassey had lived alone for eight months in a small camp on Caltrans property. The camp provided food, clean water, and shelter from extreme heat, and it was the only place where his case manager could reach him because Tassey did not have a phone.

On September 29, 2023, the defendants posted a notice ordering Tassey to vacate by October 1. The notice stated that camping or lodging on state property without permission violated California law and warned that continued violations could lead to a citation or arrest. It also stated that personal property left at the site would be treated as abandoned, stored for 60 days, and then disposed of if not reclaimed. The planned removal period was October 2 through October 6.

Tassey said he had a knee injury and needed two weeks to find another place to camp and move his belongings. He asked for time to relocate and for storage of his property under California law.

Temporary restraining order

The court applied the four-part test for temporary emergency injunctive relief: likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, the balance of hardships, and the public interest. The court concluded that Tassey raised serious questions about whether the defendants would violate his constitutional rights by forcing him to relocate or abandon property on one business day’s notice, without other available shelter and without clarity about what property would be discarded or stored.

The court also found a likelihood of irreparable injury. Without immediate relief, Tassey risked losing his property, shelter, food, and clean water during a week expected to include multiple days of 90-degree weather. The court noted that losing personal belongings can be especially serious for an unhoused person. The possibility that Tassey would lose contact with his case manager further supported the finding.

Because Tassey had lived at the camp for eight months and sought only the time needed to relocate, the court found that the balance of hardships strongly favored him. The court also found that the public interest favored a short delay to prevent a possible constitutional violation resulting from inadequate notice and the lack of alternative shelter. The court emphasized that Tassey was expected to honor his statement that he could and would move in the coming weeks.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the application for a temporary restraining order. The order applies to the named defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and people acting together with them. They are restrained from proceeding with the planned removal of people, personal possessions, and structures from Tassey’s camp.

The court also GRANTED Tassey’s application to proceed without prepaying court fees. Because the defendants had not waived service, the order directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the application, complaint, and specified court documents without prepayment of fees. The defendants were also ordered to post a copy of the order where the campsite notice had been posted.

The court issued an order requiring each party to explain whether a preliminary injunction should provide relief beyond October 18, 2023. Written responses were due October 13, 2023, and Judge Celi Martinez-Oeg scheduled a video hearing for October 17, 2023. The opinion does not state the outcome of any later preliminary-injunction proceeding.