Parnell v. City of Berkeley

Background

Lewanda Parnell and Michael Douglas lived in tents in an encampment around 8th and Harrison Streets in Berkeley. The City posted notices stating that it would begin closing the encampment on December 12, 2023. The plaintiffs asked the court to stop the closure and the removal of residents and their possessions.

The court first ordered the parties to maintain the existing situation and later issued a temporary restraining order, or TRO, blocking the City’s action until a hearing could occur. The court initially found that the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs and that they were more likely to succeed because they were unhoused and disabled and faced eviction during winter without somewhere to go.

At hearings on December 19 and 21, the City offered Parnell and Douglas non-congregate housing intended to accommodate their basic needs, disabilities, and limitations. Douglas was offered a room at the Berkeley Inn and was allowed to keep his dog, Boy. The City agreed to provide him with a shelter handbook. Parnell was offered a room at the Campus Motel, a handbook, storage for certain bottles and cans she collected for income, and bathroom grab bars to accommodate her disability. The City was working to hire a contractor to install the grab bars.

Court’s analysis

A TRO is an emergency court order that temporarily prevents a party from taking a specified action. The court applied the standard for preliminary relief, which requires considering the likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, the balance of hardships, and the public interest. The Ninth Circuit also permits a sliding-scale approach when a plaintiff raises serious questions and the balance of hardships strongly favors relief.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ showing had changed because they were being provided housing that largely accommodated their disabilities and limitations. The court stated that there was likely no longer a constitutional or statutory violation under those circumstances. It also found that the balance of hardships favored the City because the plaintiffs had shelter addressing their basic needs, while continuing the TRO would further delay the City’s plans to fence off the encampment site, make repairs, and allow the owners of abutting property to install a planting strip.

The court further found that the remaining factors no longer supported preliminary relief. It concluded that the plaintiffs were no longer likely to suffer irreparable harm without the TRO and that continuing the relief was therefore no longer in the public interest.

Disposition

The court ordered that the TRO concerning Douglas expire at 11:59 p.m. on Monday, December 25, 2023, because his room at the Berkeley Inn was available. The court ordered that the TRO concerning Parnell expire 48 hours after the City filed confirmation that the grab bars had been installed in her Campus Motel room. The opinion states that the court would dissolve the TRO subject to this workable timeline; it does not identify the plaintiffs’ underlying constitutional or statutory claims in the provided text.