Boyd v. City of San Rafael

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 SHALEETA BOYD, et al., Case No. 23-cv-04085-EMC (EMC)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 9 v. PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 10 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, et al., 11 Defendants. Docket No. 101

12 13 The present motion was filed by Mr. Nelson in response to the City issuing an abatement 14 notice to remove wooden pallets beneath his tent; the wooden pallets were deemed unsafe by the 15 City. Docket Nos. 101-2, 101-4. The abatement notice is premised upon general city and state 16 fire and safety codes. 1 Id. 17 Mr. Nelson initially alleged that the abatement notice, in conjunction with statements made 18 by City officials, constituted a threat of eviction. Docket No. 101 ¶¶ 1, 26. However, at oral 19 argument on this motion held on November 1, 2023, Mr. Nelson reframed his concern, stating he 20 was unable to comply with the abatement notice. Specifically, he stated he has an injured hand 21 that prevents him from removing the wooden pallets and replacing them with material such as 22 plastic to keep his tent off the ground and free from flooding. The City represented at oral 23 argument that it will provide Mr. Nelson with assistance replacing his wooden pallets as is needed. 24 Mr. Nelson also stated at that time that he has people in the area that can help him replace his 25 wooden pallets with an alternative material and does not need assistance. The City also stated it 26 does not seek to evict Mr. Nelson, arrest him, or otherwise displace him at this time. The issue at 27 1 present is removal of two wood pallets from under Mr. Nelson’s tent. 2 In light of these representations, and the evidence in the record, the Court find that there is 3 no irreparable harm presented absent a temporary restraining order; injunctive relief is thus not 4 appropriate at this time. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) 5 (finding that entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief requires showing irreparable harm in the 6 absence of injunctive relief). 7 Further, given that the City is not seeking to displace Mr. Nelson, a contempt order is 8 likewise not appropriate here. See Docket No. 98 at 49 (“ To be clear, this preliminary injunction 9 does not prevent the City from currently enforcing its conventional fire and safety codes which 10 are generally applicable so long as Plaintiffs are not displaced.”). 11 Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff Brian Nelson’s motion for temporary 12 || restraining order. Docket No. 101. To the extent that Mr. Nelson requires assistance in replacing 13 his wooden pallets with non-flammable supports, the Court expects the City to adhere to its 14 || representation that it will assist Mr. Nelson in this effort.

a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: November 2, 2023 19 LL 20 Nw lb EDWARD M. CHEN 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28