Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01709/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01709-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENT SHIPP, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LIBBY SCHAAF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01709-JST 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER, TO PROCEED IFP, AND FOR 

ELECTRONIC CASE FILING; ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION

Re: ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9

Plaintiffs Brent Shipp and Eric De Guzman bring this action pro se against the City of 

Oakland, the City’s Department of Public Works, Mayor Libby Schaaf, and Assistant to the City 

Administrator Joe DeVries under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and 

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution based on the City’s previous evictions 

of various homeless encampments in Oakland where Plaintiffs have resided and their threatened 

eviction of the encampment where Plaintiffs reside now. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs seek a temporary 

restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt the threatened eviction. For the reasons that 

follow, the Court will grant the temporary restraining order. 

I. BACKGROUND1

The City of Oakland has enacted ordinances recognizing “that a shelter crisis exists due to 

a ‘significant number of persons . . . without the ability to obtain shelter, resulting in a threat to 

their health and safety.’” ECF No. 1-2 (February 13, 2019 memo from City Council President 

Rebecca Kaplan) at 1. As part of its response to this crisis, the city’s Public Works Department 

has a Standard Operating Procedure (“S.O.P.”) regarding the removal of homeless encampments 

 

1 The following facts are taken from the allegations of the complaint. 

Case 4:19-cv-01709-JST Document 11 Filed 04/02/19 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

from public rights-of-way, parks, and City-owned property. ECF No. 1-2 at 10. The S.O.P. 

contemplates that sometimes the belongings of homeless persons will be removed when homeless 

encampments are cleared, and states that the S.O.P.’s “guidelines must be followed to protect the 

constitutional rights of persons whose personal property remains at these locations.” Id. As 

relevant here, the required procedures include the following:

• “City personnel shall not prevent occupants from retrieving their belongings before 

vacating the encampment site.” 

• “City personnel shall not confiscate or remove belongings from site when the 

occupant is present, absent a reasonable belief that the belongings are an immediate threat to 

public health and safety or are evidence of a crime or contraband.”

• “[The Public Works Agency] shall itemize the belongings collected and include the 

location, date, and time of collection on the itemization form.”

2

• Public Works will store the collected belongings at a Public Works facility for at 

least ninety (90) days.

Plaintiffs Shipp and De Guzman live in a homeless encampment located at East 12th Street 

and 16th Avenue in the City of Oakland. They have lived in homeless encampments in other 

locations in the City from which they were evicted and their belongings were seized. They allege 

that Oakland violates its own policy by disposing of homeless persons’ belongings improperly. 

They “want the City of Oakland to follow their so called policy and stop throwing away people’s 

belongings . . . [and] do the job they are paid to do & bag, tag and & store our belongings for 90 

days.” ECF No. 1 at 5. They contend that Oakland’s actions violate their constitutional rights 

under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. 

On March 29, 2019, Oakland’s Department of Public Works posted a notice that public 

works crews would “temporarily close the encampment” in the median on East 12th Street from 

14th to 19th Avenues “between the hours of 8 AM and 4 PM” on Wednesday, April 3, 2019, or on 

 

2 There is an exception for “belongings that are considered to be clearly trash or are unsafe for 

storage, such as food or food wrappers, soiled items, or used personal hygiene items.” Id. Public 

works employees are directed to “immediately dispose of” such items. Id. 

Case 4:19-cv-01709-JST Document 11 Filed 04/02/19 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the next business day, “to clean the site thoroughly.” ECF No. 3 at 3. The notice further 

cautioned that “[a]ny property left at this site at the time of cleanup will be removed from the site 

and stored by Public Works. Property that is unsafe or hazardous to store will be discarded 

immediately.” Id. 

Shipp and De Guzman seek a temporary restraining order to prevent this temporary 

closure. Id. at 1. Referring to the City’s past history of closing similar encampments, they assert 

in their complaint that “[t]hese eviction[s] cause us depression, anxiety, trauma, stress. We go 

thru [sic] emotional & mental distress. We lose important paperwork, family photos, medication, 

IDs, & personal property at every eviction . . . .” ECF No. 1 at 5.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court applies a familiar four-factor test on both a motion for a temporary restraining

order and a motion for a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & 

Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff seeking either remedy “must establish that 

he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 

public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 

2009) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). Injunctive relief is 

“an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is 

entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. 

To grant preliminary injunctive relief, a court must find that “a certain threshold showing 

[has been] made on each factor.” Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 2011) (per 

curiam). Assuming that this threshold has been met, “serious questions going to the merits and a 

balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary 

injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and 

that the injunction is in the public interest.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 

1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 4:19-cv-01709-JST Document 11 Filed 04/02/19 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR ELECTRONIC 

CASE FILING

Plaintiffs both move to proceed in forma pauperis and for electronic case filing. ECF Nos. 

2, 4, 8, 9. A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without 

prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable 

to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Here, Plaintiffs have submitted the required 

documentation, and it is evident from their applications that their assets and income are 

insufficient to enable them to pay the filing fees. ECF Nos. 2, 4. Accordingly, Shipp and De 

Guzman’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED. 

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions for electronic case filing. 

IV. ANALYSIS

Turning to the Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, the Court finds that 

Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury from the destruction of their 

personal property, that the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor, and that the injunction 

is in the public interest. Given Plaintiffs’ allegation that Oakland does not follow its stated policy 

of safeguarding the belongings of homeless persons when it removes homeless encampments from 

public property, the Court also finds there are at least serious questions going to the merits

regarding Plaintiffs’ legal claims. “Because homeless persons’ unabandoned possessions are 

‘property’ within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, the City must comport with the 

requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause if it wishes to take and destroy 

them.” Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022, 1032 (9th Cir. 2012). 

The Court notes there is no evidence that Plaintiffs gave notice before filing their motion. 

Civil Local Rule 65-1(b) provides, “Unless relieved by order of a Judge for good cause shown, on 

or before the day of an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, counsel applying for the 

temporary restraining order must deliver notice of such motion to opposing counsel or party.” 

Civ. L.R. 65-1(b). And Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a court “may 

issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its 

attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that 

Case 4:19-cv-01709-JST Document 11 Filed 04/02/19 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse 

party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts 

made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).

In this case, there is no evidence that Plaintiffs gave notice to Defendants before seeking a 

temporary restraining order. However, if this Court does not act, Oakland will remove their 

belongings tomorrow. As another judge of this court, faced with similar circumstances, recently 

observed, 

It is not clear to the Court why Plaintiffs waited until little before 12 hours before 

the potential clearing to file this action, when they received the notice several days 

ago. Nevertheless, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have clearly shown that 

immediate and irreparable injury – specifically the removal of plaintiffs and their 

belongings from the place they are now living – will occur before the Defendants 

can be heard in opposition. Based on the timing of the noticed action, by the time 

the papers could be served and a hearing held, Plaintiffs’ claims would essentially 

be moot.

Miralle v. City of Oakland, Case No. 18-cv-06823-HSG, ECF No. 20 at 2 (Nov. 9, 2018); see also

Hung v. Schaaf, Case No. 19-cv-01436-CRB, ECF No. 18 at 2 (“In any event, Plaintiffs have 

demonstrated they face immediate and irreparable injury in the form of a loss of their homes and 

possession and the possibility of criminal sanction, before the Court has had the opportunity to 

hear from Defendants in this matter. Further, as the Plaintiffs are pro se, it is unclear whether Rule 

65(b)(1)(B)’s requirements, which impose a duty on ‘the movant’s attorney,’ apply here. Given 

the imminent nature of the challenged action and resulting irreparable harm shown, the Court finds 

that the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1) are met.”). 

This Court reaches the same conclusion here as its colleague courts and finds that a 

temporary restraining order may issue without notice. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order 

enjoining Defendants from vacating the homeless encampment located at East 12th Street and 

16th Avenue for 14 days, until April 16, 2019. This order is entered at 9:00 p.m. on April 2, 2019. 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Defendants, and each of them, is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on April 15, 

2019, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard in the courtroom of the 

Case 4:19-cv-01709-JST Document 11 Filed 04/02/19 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Honorable Jon S. Tigar, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, why they, 

and each of them, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other 

person or entity subject to their control or acting directly or indirectly in concert or participation 

with Defendants, should not be enjoined from taking any action to vacate the homeless 

encampment located at East 12th Street and 16th Avenue, pending the final disposition of this 

action. Defendants’ opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction is due April 8, 2019. 

Plaintiffs’ optional reply is due April 11, 2019.

Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a district court may grant 

a preliminary injunction “only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers 

proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully 

enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). The district court retains discretion “as to the 

amount of security required, if any.” Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). In this case, the Court 

concludes that requiring Plaintiffs, who are homeless, to post a bond would be tantamount to 

denying them relief. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to waive a bond.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve this Order on Plaintiffs by email at 

maowunyo@gmail.com, deguzmaneric58@gmail.com, and popeye1977342@aol.com. The Clerk 

is further DIRECTED to serve this order, the complaint, ECF No. 1, and the motions for a 

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, ECF Nos. 3 and 7, on Defendants Libby 

Schaaf at officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com and Joe DeVries at jdevries@oaklandnet.com.

Plaintiffs are responsible for serving the complaint, ECF No. 1, the motions for a temporary 

restraining order and preliminary injunction, ECF Nos. 3 and 7, and this order on Defendants

Department of Public Works and City of Oakland. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-01709-JST Document 11 Filed 04/02/19 Page 6 of 6