Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01089/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01089-1/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

MICHAEL LAWRENCE BOWEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01089-PJH 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 

TERMINATING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND 

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 4

Plaintiff Michael Bowen’s motion for a temporary restraining order came on for 

hearing before this court on March 6, 2019. Plaintiff appeared pro se. Defendants

appeared through their counsel, Jamillah Jefferson. Having read the papers filed by 

plaintiff and carefully considered the arguments of both parties and the relevant legal 

authority, and good cause appearing, the court rules as follows for the reasons stated at 

the hearing and for the following reasons.

On February 27, 2019, Bowen filed a complaint against defendants the City of 

Oakland (“the City”), Libby Schaaf (Mayor), Joe Devries (Asst. to City Administrator), and 

the Oakland Department of Public Works. Dkt. 1. The complaint asserts claims under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of: (1) the Eighth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution; (2) the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (3) the 

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (4) Cal. Civ. Code § 1006.

Plaintiff filed motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction on the 

same day. Dkts. 2, 4.

Case 4:19-cv-01089-PJH Document 18 Filed 03/06/19 Page 1 of 3
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

The complaint alleges that plaintiff and others took up residence on formerlyabandoned land they have labeled 2199 E. 12th Street, in Oakland. Plaintiff alleges that 

on February 22, 2019, defendants posted a notice of eviction stating that plaintiff and the 

other residents of 2199 E. 12th Street were trespassing on public land. He seeks an 

injunction preventing eviction. Dkt. 1 at 5. The eviction was scheduled to take place at 

8 a.m. on Wednesday, February 27, 2019, or on the following day. Dkt. 1 at 4; see also

Dkt. 2 at ECF pp. 8 (Ex. F, “Notice to Vacate Illegal Encampment”), 11 (Ex. G). 

To date, plaintiff has not been evicted. Defendants represented at the hearing that 

the February 22, 2019 notice of eviction plaintiff is challenging has expired. Because it 

has expired, defendants will not evict plaintiff pursuant to that notice of eviction. 

Defendants further represented that prior to any attempt to evict plaintiff, they will post a 

new notice of eviction. They also represented that they do not have any imminent intent 

to post another notice of eviction for 2199 E. 12th Street, and they do not have an 

imminent intent to evict plaintiff from that land.

Based on defendants’ representations that they will not evict plaintiff pursuant to 

the February 22, 2019 notice of eviction, and that they have no imminent plans to evict 

plaintiff, Bowen is not likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief 

from this court at this time. Therefore, Bowen’s motion for a temporary restraining order 

is DENIED. The same analysis would likely apply to plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction, so plaintiff WITHDREW his motion for a preliminary injunction at the March 6, 

2019 hearing. Bowen’s motion for a preliminary injunction is accordingly TERMINATED.

Bowen’s complaint remains pending. If defendants wish to file a motion to 

dismiss, they must do so on or before April 22, 2019. If Bowen wishes to file an 

opposition to defendants’ motion, he must do so on or before May 6, 2019. Defendants 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 4:19-cv-01089-PJH Document 18 Filed 03/06/19 Page 2 of 3
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

may file a reply on or before May 13, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2019

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-01089-PJH Document 18 Filed 03/06/19 Page 3 of 3