Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiffs are former residents of Sam Jones Hall, a shelter operated by Catholic Charities of Northwest California (CCNWC), who were evicted following two violent incidents on October 7 and 8, 2026, that violated shelter policies. They are currently homeless and participating in CCNWC's appeals process to regain residency. Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order seeking readmission to the shelter and a preemptory writ to inspect shelter records. The court ordered plaintiffs to serve defendants and provide them an opportunity to be heard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1). The City of Santa Rosa and CCNWC filed oppositions; individual defendants did not. The matter was deemed submitted on the papers.
Plaintiffs sued the City of Santa Rosa, CCNWC, and several individual defendants, alleging that the City directly controls CCNWC and therefore the shelter. They sought a mandatory injunction requiring readmission, arguing that CCNWC is a state actor subject to the Fourteenth Amendment, that defendants violated Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate their disabilities during the appeals process, and that their eviction was retaliation for their association with Merlin Davis, a property owner across from the shelter, in violation of the First Amendment. Defendants countered that plaintiffs were removed for safety reasons after posing a hazard to other residents.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the TRO, holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits—the threshold and most important factor for injunctive relief. First, plaintiffs did not show that CCNWC is a state actor. The court found that CCNWC's funding and operating agreements with the City, and email communications between the entities, are insufficient to establish state action under Rendell-Baker v. Kohn and Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority. The City does not operate the shelter and lacks the ability to execute an injunction ordering readmission. Because the Fourteenth Amendment claims fail, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.
Second, plaintiffs' ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims are unlikely to succeed. Plaintiffs do not allege that CCNWC discriminated against them because of their disabilities; rather, they argue CCNWC should modify its appeals process. Title II does not require modifications that would fundamentally alter existing programs, and plaintiffs do not contend the appeals process facially discriminates. Under Section 504, plaintiffs provided no evidence they were denied benefits solely because of their disabilities; defendants presented evidence that removal was based on safety concerns. Third, the First Amendment retaliation claim fails because plaintiffs admit involvement in an incident on October 7, 2026, and present no evidence of a causal connection between their association with Merlin Davis and the eviction. Having found no likelihood of success or serious questions on the merits, the court did not reach irreparable harm and also found the balance of hardships does not tip sharply in plaintiffs' favor, noting that one plaintiff has already been invited back, all receive ongoing support services, and all may return on November 7, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A private shelter operator's receipt of public funds and contractual relationship with a city does not, without more, render it a state actor subject to Fourteenth Amendment constraints.
- Mandatory injunctions requiring readmission to a shelter are 'doubly demanding' and require a clear showing that the law favors the movant, not merely serious questions on the merits.
- ADA Title II and Section 504 claims require evidence of discrimination because of disability, not merely a request for new accommodations that would fundamentally alter existing programs.
- First Amendment retaliation claims require a causal connection between protected association and adverse action; admission of a violent incident undermines such a claim when the defendant cites safety as the reason for removal.
- Where an appeals process is ongoing and alternative shelter and support services are available, the balance of hardships may not tip sharply in favor of plaintiffs seeking immediate mandatory injunctive relief.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the high bar for obtaining a mandatory temporary restraining order in the Ninth Circuit, particularly when plaintiffs must first establish state action to support constitutional claims against a private entity performing a public function. The court's analysis reinforces that funding agreements and inter-agency communications alone do not transform a private nonprofit into a state actor. The decision also clarifies that disability discrimination claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require proof of discriminatory intent or effect, not just a desire for modified procedures, and that safety-based removals from congregate shelters can defeat retaliation claims when plaintiffs acknowledge the underlying incidents.