Boyd v. City of San Rafael

Background

This order clarified the scope of the court’s October 19, 2023, preliminary injunction. The court stated that the temporary restraining order issued on August 16, 2023, and later extended and modified, was no longer in effect because the October 19 order converted it into a preliminary injunction.

The order concerns San Rafael Municipal Code sections 19.50 and 19.20.080(C), referred to in the order as the ordinances at issue. The injunction’s terms, including conditions that must be met before enforcement against covered plaintiffs, remained in effect temporarily, subject to later narrowing and modification after the identified preconditions were met.

Scope of the Injunction

The preliminary injunction extends only to residents at the Mahon Creek Path who have standing to seek injunctive relief either as individually named plaintiffs or through membership in the San Rafael Homeless Union. It does not prevent enforcement of the cited ordinances against other people or in locations outside this lawsuit.

The court clarified that the defendants are not affirmatively ordered to carry out the stated preconditions whenever they enforce the ordinances. The injunction is prohibitory rather than mandatory: it restricts enforcement against the covered plaintiffs but does not require the defendants to take specified actions.

The defendants are not barred from enforcing general fire and safety codes against the plaintiffs. However, those codes may not be used to displace the covered plaintiffs unless the conditions in the preliminary injunction are met, and they may not otherwise be used to circumvent the injunction. The plaintiffs are not protected from arrest or violations of laws unrelated to camping unless the City’s action is shown to be an attempt to evade the injunction.

Campsite Size

The court explained that the 400-square-foot adjustment for camps of up to four people applies only to plaintiffs who want to camp with others. It does not apply to people maintaining wholly individual campsites. The adjustment reflects an allowance of 100 square feet per camper.

Housing Offers and Courtney Huff

The court stated that an offer of suitable housing to an individual plaintiff could affect that person’s protection under the injunction. The court said such an offer might constitute a sufficient effort to address a government-created danger or a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and might change the balance of hardships. It also said that an offer could make a person voluntarily homeless, which could make an Eighth Amendment claim inapplicable. If defendants make such an offer, they may seek to modify the injunction as to the resident receiving it.

The defendants specifically argued that Courtney Huff was not entitled to protection because she sometimes resides in an apartment. Huff testified that she has an apartment, but the record also stated that she had been sexually assaulted there, experienced domestic violence, feared threats from a former partner, and continued to fear a group involved in her alleged human trafficking. She sometimes stayed at the Mahon Creek Path to sleep among people she trusted.

The City questioned the truth of Huff’s fears, including by pointing to an occasion when she went to a campsite where her former abuser resided. The court found that this did not overcome Huff’s statements at this stage because the circumstances were unclear and the City had not addressed her fears about human trafficking. Based on the current record, the court could not conclude that Huff was voluntarily residing at the path and held that she still had standing to obtain relief under the preliminary injunction.

Union Membership and Further Disputes

The court ordered the San Rafael Homeless Union to provide defendants with a list of Union members who resided at the Mahon Creek Path when the preliminary injunction was ordered. The exchange was to occur within one week of the November 1, 2023, hearing. The parties were directed to meet and confer about a suitable way to share the information, such as through a protective order, to protect members’ privacy. The court explained that only people who resided at the path when the injunction was ordered could claim its protection there.

For future disputes about compliance with or enforcement of the injunction, the parties were directed, absent an emergency, to confer before seeking resolution before Judge Illman and before filing a motion with this court. The court also encouraged settlement discussions before Judge Illman.

Disposition

The court entered an order clarifying the preliminary injunction’s scope and related procedures. It did not state that the underlying lawsuit was resolved.