See v. Fort Wayne City of, 1:16-cv-00105

Plaintiff Keith See, a homeless man, sued the City of Fort Wayne seeking injunctive relief to stop the City from seizing and destroying homeless persons’ property and evicting encampments on public property, alleging Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations.
See experienced multiple cleanups: in 2015 the City sometimes seized and immediately destroyed property without advance notice (including See’s coat and another homeless man’s Bible).
Since January 2016 the City implemented a practice of posting printed notices at encampments at least 48 hours before cleanups and notifying community service providers, but it historically had no written policy for handling seized personal property.
At the Wells Street Bridge cleanup (May 2016) the City placed identifiable property into unsecured trash bins and removed some items (See’s mattress and pallet) despite posted notice; prior notices had indicated an earlier cleanup date that did not occur.
The City justifies cleanups based on citizen complaints, sanitation, public-health and environmental hazards, and often contracts specialized biohazard cleaners; arrests/citations for sleeping in public are rare.
The magistrate judge recommended granting See’s preliminary injunction in part, finding likelihood of success on Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment seizure/due process claims but not on equal protection or Eighth Amendment claims; recommended specific 72-hour notice and retention protections for See’s property.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope / class relief	Seeks injunction to protect himself and effectively other homeless persons	City: no class certified, so relief may only be issued for named plaintiff	Court limited relief to See individually (not class-wide) but notes practical effect may aid others
Equal Protection (Fourteenth)	City discriminates against homeless persons by targeting encampments	City acted for legitimate ends (sanitation, health, complaints); homeless not a suspect class	No likelihood of success; equal protection claim denied
Cruel and Unusual Punishment (Eighth)	Criminalizing homelessness and evicting camps violates Eighth Amendment	City rarely arrests/convicts; Eighth applies to convicted persons	Claim fails for lack of convictions/arrests; no likelihood of success
Unlawful seizure / due process (Fourth & Fourteenth)	City seizes/destroys non-abandoned personal property without adequate notice or post-deprivation retrieval process	City implemented 48-hour notice and some coordination with service providers; argues public-health interests justify cleanups	Court finds some likelihood of success: historic immediate destruction and inadequate post-seizure procedures justify preliminary relief; injunction granted in part (requires 72-hour notice/retention except for abandoned/health/crime exceptions)

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (U.S. 1997) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary remedy requiring clear showing).
Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S., Inc., 549 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir. 2008) (two-step preliminary injunction analysis: threshold then balancing).
McKenzie v. City of Chicago, 118 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 1997) (district court may not grant classwide injunctive relief before class certification).
Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1992) (seizure occurs when there is meaningful interference with possessory interests).
Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012) (government may not seize and immediately destroy homeless persons’ unattended but non-abandoned property without notice and opportunity to be heard).
Joy v. Penn-Harris-Madison Sch. Corp., 212 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2000) (reasonableness balancing test for seizures).
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1982) (equal protection principle that similarly situated persons must be treated alike).
Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2010) (Eighth Amendment applies only to convicted persons).