Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mave Carter-Griffin, an unhoused Oakland resident, sought a temporary restraining order to stop city officials from seizing or destroying her belongings when requiring her to leave her location. She described herself as an artist and community leader and alleged that Oakland had previously destroyed a trailer and cargo container, resulting in the deaths of several cats.
Oakland had given notice that she needed to relocate and offered shelter. At the emergency hearing, a city witness also testified that the city offered to “bag and tag” some property for storage for up to 90 days. The court temporarily maintained the status quo while it heard evidence on whether the proposed action violated the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the temporary restraining order because Carter-Griffin did not show a likelihood of success or a serious legal question on the merits. The court credited Oakland’s evidence that the city gave notice and offered both shelter and temporary storage. On that record, the planned removal did not presently show an unreasonable seizure or a denial of due process.
Because the merits showing failed, the court did not reach the remaining emergency-injunction factors. It emphasized that Carter-Griffin raised sincere policy concerns about the city’s decision to repave the road and the community value of her structure, but those concerns were not themselves constitutional violations. The court delayed the effective time of its denial for several days so she could make arrangements.
Key Takeaways
- Advance notice and a genuine opportunity to store belongings can substantially weaken constitutional challenges to an encampment property removal.
- A court deciding emergency relief may resolve credibility disputes based on testimony presented at the hearing.
- Policy objections to a city’s relocation decision do not substitute for evidence of a likely Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment violation.
- Even after denying relief, a court may briefly preserve the status quo to reduce immediate practical harm.
Why It Matters
For California cities, service providers, and advocates, the order highlights the operational safeguards that matter when clearing property associated with an unhoused resident: specific notice, a credible shelter offer, and a usable storage procedure. The existence of a program on paper may not be enough; Oakland prevailed here because the court credited evidence that the options were actually offered.
The ruling is preliminary and fact-specific, not a final determination of every claim in the lawsuit. Practitioners seeking or opposing emergency relief should be prepared to establish the concrete timing, scope, and accessibility of notice and storage rather than relying on general policies.