Tassey v. California Department of Transportation

Background

Jesse Eugene Tassey, proceeding without a lawyer, lived alone in a small camp on Caltrans property. The opinion states that he had lived there for about eight months and had food, clean water, and shelter from extreme heat. Tassey said the location was the only place where his case manager could reach him because he did not have a phone.

Caltrans posted a “Notice to Vacate Campsite” on September 29, 2023. The notice cited California Penal Code § 647(e) and California Vehicle Code § 23112(b), stated that continued violations could result in citation or arrest, and set October 1 as the date to vacate and October 2 through October 6 as the removal period. Tassey said he had no other shelter, had not been offered another shelter, and needed time to relocate his belongings because of a knee injury.

Tassey filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief and asked for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. A temporary restraining order is short-term emergency relief; a preliminary injunction is an order that can remain in effect while a case continues. On October 3, the court issued a temporary restraining order barring Caltrans from removing people, personal property, or structures from Tassey’s camp. The court later extended the order and held a hearing on October 23.

Claims and legal standard

Tassey asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including a state-created-danger claim under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, a Fourth Amendment unlawful-seizure claim, a Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim, an Eighth Amendment claim based on Ninth Circuit decisions concerning homeless encampments, and procedural and substantive due-process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, Tassey had to show that he was likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of hardships favored him, and that an injunction served the public interest. The court also explained that a strong showing on some factors can offset a weaker showing on another, but all four requirements still must be met.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Tassey had not shown irreparable harm warranting a preliminary injunction. When issuing the temporary restraining order, the court had been concerned that Tassey could lose his property, shelter, food, clean water, and contact with his case manager. The court found that those concerns had been reduced because Tassey had received two weeks to relocate and Caltrans had confirmed that, under protections described in a prior settlement and judgment, it would collect, label, and store personal property of apparent value that was not a health or safety hazard for 60 days after the cleanup.

The court also found that the balance of hardships had shifted in Caltrans’s favor. Caltrans presented evidence describing a near-miss involving a freight train near the camp, items and flammable materials near railroad tracks, possible flooding and embankment hazards, an open fire, and potential water contamination affecting Rush Creek. The court described these risks as concrete and undisputed and found that they supported timely action.

The court further found that the public interest favored denying an injunction. It concluded that the public interest in addressing the fire, flood, health, and safety hazards outweighed the temporary protection previously provided to allow Tassey time to relocate.

Finally, the court concluded that Tassey had not shown a likelihood of success on his claims. The court stated that the concerns supporting the temporary restraining order—short notice, lack of other available shelter, uncertainty about discarded or stored belongings, and lack of confirmation about property protections—had been mitigated by the record developed after that order.

Disposition

Judge Raceli Martinez-Olguin dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied Tassey’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court stated that Caltrans could reissue a notice to vacate and ordered Caltrans to serve Tassey with a copy of the order. The opinion does not state a final disposition of Tassey’s underlying claims.