Berkeley Homeless Union v. City of Berkeley
4:25-cv-04449
| N.D. Cal. | May 27, 2025Background
- The Berkeley Homeless Union (BHU) sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the City of Berkeley from clearing homeless encampments at Ohlone Park, scheduled for May 28, 2025.
- Plaintiff’s initial attempt to obtain relief regarding Ohlone Park was denied by Judge Chen in a related case (about a different location), and Plaintiff was directed to file a new action.
- Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to negotiate a stipulation and a pause of the encampment sweep with defense counsel, which was declined.
- The TRO application asserted ADA, Fourth Amendment, and state-created danger claims based on alleged inadequate accommodations, property destruction, and increased risks to displaced individuals.
- The court considered the motion on an expedited basis, less than 24 hours before the scheduled clearance.
- The court denied the TRO, finding Plaintiff had not raised serious questions on the merits of any claim or provided sufficient factual support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA accommodation | City failed to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled encampment residents, including late requests. | City required timely, verified accommodation requests; responded. | No serious questions on merits; no ADA violation shown. |
| Fourth Amendment property rights | City unlawfully destroyed/stored unhoused persons’ property during sweeps. | No legally relevant events or controlling authority cited by BHU. | No entitlement to relief; conclusory arguments rejected. |
| State-created danger (Section 1983) | City's actions forced unhoused into riskier situations, creating danger. | City's actions do not amount to state-created danger legally. | No serious questions on merits; insufficiently alleged. |
| Injunctive relief requirements | TRO justified to prevent irreparable harm and tipping equities. | Standard for relief not met; inadequate showing on all factors. | TRO denied; no likelihood of success or serious questions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (standard for injunctive relief)
- Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (TRO and preliminary injunction standards the same)
- All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (sliding scale approach to injunctive relief in the Ninth Circuit)
- Where Do We Go Berkeley v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 32 F.4th 852 (scope of ADA accommodation obligations)