1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JARED DEFIGH, Case No. 3:23-cv-02009-JD (WHO)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY 9 v. RESTRAINING ORDER

10 CITY OF OAKLAND, Re: Dkt. No. 2 Defendant. 11

12 13 The pro se plaintiffs in this action are residents and former residents of the former 14 homeless encampment at 1707 Wood Street in Oakland, California (“1707 Encampment”). They 15 filed a motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) seeking to restrain the defendant City of 16 Oakland from carrying out an ongoing eviction and closure of the 1707 Encampment. (“Mot.”) 17 [Dkt. No. 2]. The motion asserts that the City is violating the plaintiffs’ rights under the 18 Fourteenth Amendment and the state created danger doctrine. See id. The plaintiffs provide 19 several sworn declarations stating that City workers and police officers are throwing away 20 residents’ property, using a bulldozer in an unsafe manner, not storing property, and tearing down 21 structures. See id. 22 This case is directly related to another ongoing case, Janosko v. City of Oakland, No. 3:23- 23 CV-00035-WHO, where counseled plaintiff-residents of the 1707 Encampment have filed 24 multiple TROs to pause and halt the same eviction. Though in January 2023 I initially granted a 25 TRO based on finding serious questions going to the merits of the plaintiffs’ state created danger 26 claims, see Janosko v. City of Oakland, No. 3:23-CV-00035-WHO,

(N.D. Cal. 27 Jan. 13, 2023), I subsequently dissolved the TRO once the City provided additional shelter beds 1 of Oakland, No. 3:23-CV-00035-WHO,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2023) 2 (outlining the history of the case and eviction). Six weeks later, the plaintiffs moved for another 3 || TRO based on concerns that the closure would violate their Fourth Amendment rights, providing 4 allegations that the City was destroying makeshift shelters and refusing to store certain 5 belongings. See

I denied that TRO, finding the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed because the 6 || City was providing shelter and storage for many belongings, was towing vehicles to a secure 7 || location, and was not required to maintain and store makeshift shelters or a shipping container, as 8 || requested by the plaintiffs. 9 The plaintiffs in this case have not presented any new arguments or facts that were not 10 otherwise addressed in those prior TRO motions, dissolutions, and denials. For the same reasons 11 as stated in Janosko, Dkt. No. 27, there are no longer serious questions going to the merits of the 12 || plaintiffs’ state created danger claims. And for the same reasons stated in Janosko,

13 3029256, at *2-5, the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims relating to 14 || destruction of property. Though I sympathize with the plaintiffs’ challenges and concerns arising 3 15 from leaving community members and certain property, the residents have had significant notice 16 || of the closure and the City has provided opportunities for shelter and storage. 3 17 Accordingly, the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. See 18 Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

(2008). The motion is DENIED. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: April 27, 2023 _VM.Qe 23 . A William H. Orrick United States District Judge 25 26 27 28