United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2022

Ardgall v. City of Sausalito

Ardgall v. City of Sausalito
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided August 23, 2022
Ardgall v. City of Sausalito

Trial Court Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MADISON ARDGALL, Case No. 22-cv-04722-EMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DENYING 10 CITY OF SAUSALITO, et al., PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 11 Defendants. AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 12 Docket Nos. 2-3 14 Currently pending before the Court is Ms. Ardgall’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and her motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction.

16 The Court has reviewed Ms. Ardgall’s financial affidavit. Based on that affidavit, it GRANTS her application to proceed in forma pauperis. Furthermore, because Ms. Ardgall has raised a claim implicating Martin v. Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court orders the U.S. Marshals Office to serve her summons and complaint on Defendants.

20 Turning to Ms. Ardgall’s motion for a TRO and a preliminary injunction, the Court denies the request for relief but without prejudice. The Court is not unsympathetic to Ms. Ardgall’s situation. She appears to have health problems, including a bad leg. However, Ms. Ardgall does not have a constitutional claim simply because Defendants did not provide her housing or help finding housing. To the extent Ms. Ardgall is concerned that she will be arrested for unlawful daytime or overnight camping pursuant to Resolution No. 6009, the Court notes that she has not been arrested nor does there appear to be any threat that she will be arrested.

27 That being said, the City and its agents should be mindful of the holding in Martin v. Boise against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors, on public property, when no alternative shelter is available to them.” Id. at 604.

3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, but without prejudice.

5 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 2 and 3.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: August 23, 2022 11 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 12 United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.