Welchen v. Bonta, 2:16-cv-00185

Background

Plaintiff Gary Welchen, an indigent, homeless Sacramento resident, was arrested on January 29, 2016, on burglary charges and told he would not be released unless he paid $10,000 bail.
Welchen filed a putative class action challenging Sacramento’s bail practices as a wealth-based detention scheme that penalizes indigent arrestees.
He moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to prohibit wealth-based pretrial detention and require release/detention decisions be based on factors other than wealth.
The Court treated the TRO motion under the preliminary injunction standard and applied the Winter test (and Ninth Circuit sliding-scale framework).
The Court found Welchen’s filings lacked factual detail about Sacramento’s bail procedures and comparators, and concluded he failed to show likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
Consequently, the Court denied the TRO without reaching the balance-of-equities or public-interest prongs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sacramento’s bail scheme is an unconstitutional, wealth‑based detention system warranting immediate injunctive relief	Welchen: bail decisions in Sacramento effectively detain indigent arrestees solely because of inability to pay; requests TRO to stop wealth‑based detention	Defendants: (implicitly) Sacramento’s system considers factors beyond wealth; plaintiff’s pleadings lack factual showing that system is substantially similar to other systems found unconstitutional	Denied — plaintiff failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits
Whether plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm absent injunction	Welchen: unconstitutional jailing is irreparable harm to body and mind; imminent injury justifies TRO	Defendants: factual record does not show constitutional violation or that inability to pay is sole determinant of detention	Denied — court found no demonstrated irreparable harm
Whether movant met the Winter test for preliminary injunctive relief	Welchen: argued irreparable harm and likelihood on merits based on equal‑protection/ due‑process principles	Defendants: argued insufficient factual showing on merits and harm; TRO would alter status quo and requires heightened showing	Denied — plaintiff failed the first two Winter prongs, so injunction inappropriate
Whether the Court should apply heightened scrutiny because the injunction would alter the status quo	Welchen: sought to change pretrial detention practices	Defendants: emphasized caution where relief would mandate changes to existing procedures	Held: Court applied caution and required strong showing; plaintiff did not meet that burden

Key Cases Cited

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (establishes four‑factor test for preliminary injunctions)
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (preliminary injunctions are extraordinary remedies requiring clear showing)
University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (purpose of preliminary injunction is to preserve status quo pending trial)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff must make a showing on all Winter factors; sliding‑scale approach explained)
Schrier v. University of Colorado, 427 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2005) (courts cautious issuing mandatory injunctions that alter status quo)
Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc., 60 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 1995) (heightened scrutiny for injunctions that change status quo)
Martin v. International Olympic Committee, 740 F.2d 670 (9th Cir. 1984) (cautionary principle for mandatory preliminary relief)
Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2012) (sliding‑scale requires likelihood of irreparable injury)