Mcloud v. County of Sonoma et.al.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DENISE MCLOUD, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04284-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 6 10 COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al., 11 Defendants.

13 A temporary restraining order is an “extraordinary remedy” that the court should award only upon a clear showing that the party is entitled to such relief. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def.

15 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Such an order may be issued only where the moving party has established: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to plaintiff in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in plaintiff's favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See id. at 22.

19 This Court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice only if (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that 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 it should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).

24 In this case, on the morning of Monday, July 25, 2022, pro se Plaintiffs filed (1) a complaint, motion for temporary restraining order, and motion for preliminary injunction; and (2) a separate motion for temporary restraining order. Dkt. Nos. 1, 6. Plaintiffs allege that they are unhoused residents of a portion of the Joe Rodota Regional Trail in Santa Rosa, California.

1 notices by Sonoma County Regional Park Rangers, which indicated that they had to relocate by Tuesday, July 26, 2022, at 8:00 a.m., or they would be arrested. See id. at ¶¶ 19, 25. Plaintiffs further allege that they have not been offered alternative shelter, and do not believe Defendants have “genuine plan[s]” to “stor[e] people’s property . . . .” See id. at ¶¶ 19, 23–24, 26–27, 32. To the contrary, Plaintiffs allege that regional park rangers “have been destroying people’s property . . . .” Id. at ¶ 24.

7 It is not clear to the Court why Plaintiffs waited until the day 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. Because Plaintiffs are not e-filers, and only some of them have provided email addresses, the next business day that the Court can reasonably provide adequate notice to all involved and hold a hearing is Wednesday, July 27, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.

16 In addition, because the Plaintiffs are pro se, it is not clear whether the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1)(B), which impose a duty on “the movant’s attorney,” are applicable 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.

20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, solely to maintain the status quo until the earliest possible hearing on the merits of the TRO request. Defendants are enjoined from proceeding with the clearing and eviction of those currently residing on the Joe Rodota Regional Trail until a hearing can be held on the merits of Plaintiffs’ request. This order issued on July 25, 2022, at 1:55 p.m.

25 The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve this Order on the Plaintiffs by email at [email protected]; [email protected]; and [email protected]. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to serve this Order; the complaint, motion for temporary restraining restraining order and preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 6) on Defendants at [email protected]; robert.pittman @ sonoma-county.org; parks @ sonoma- county.org; bert.whitaker@ sonoma-county.org; rhammond @srcity.org.

4 A hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order is set for Wednesday, July 27, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA. All || parties shall attend in-person.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: 7/25/2022 ° ah S. GILLIAM, JR. / 10 United States District Judge ll a 12

€ = 17 Zz 18