Bay Area

Federal Judge Refuses to Suspend Injunction Against Encampment Sweeps

Citing a misguided legal maneuver by city attorneys, a federal magistrate judge late Monday denied a motion by the city of San Francisco to suspend a preliminary injunction that prevents the city from sweeping tent encampments in the city while there is a shortage of shelter beds.

Published

3 years ago

April 6, 2023

Oakland Post

The plaintiffs argued that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments means that the city can't punish a person for sleeping on city streets while there is a shortfall of available shelter beds.

By Joe Dworetzky
Bay City News

In denying the request for a stay while the injunction is under appeal, U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu called out a legal gambit by city lawyers who, in their haste to appeal, disregarded her earlier advice about the proper procedure for raising their challenge to the injunction.

Ryu used the city’s legal strategy to support her conclusion that the city had little likelihood of success on its appeal of the preliminary injunction. She also found the city had not shown that it would be “irreparably injured” if the injunction remains in place.

The decision, and in particular her focus on the city’s legal maneuvering, seems likely to complicate the city’s chances of reversing the prohibition on sweeps in the near term.

The controversy is in a high-profile case brought against the city by the advocacy group Coalition on Homelessness and a number of individual plaintiffs, some of them unsheltered people living on city streets.

The plaintiffs argued that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments means that the city can’t punish a person for sleeping on city streets while there is a shortfall of available shelter beds.

Ryu agreed and on Dec. 23, 2022, she preliminarily enjoined the city from enforcing or threatening to enforce a variety of laws and ordinances that would “prohibit involuntarily homeless individuals from sitting, lying, or sleeping on public property.”

The order effectively barred the city from breaking up or sweeping tent encampments.

The judge based her ruling on the fact that the city’s shelter system was more than 4,000 beds short of being able to accommodate the full unsheltered portion of the city’s homeless population. Without shelter beds, she reasoned that the homeless had no place to sleep except the city’s streets. That meant that sweeping encampments was essentially punishing people for the involuntary status of being homeless.

When the preliminary injunction was issued, the city’s reaction was swift and sharp.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed said, “Mayors cannot run cities this way. We already have too few tools to deal with the mental illness we see on our streets. Now we are being told not to use another tool that helps bring people indoors and keeps our neighborhoods safe and clean for our residents.”

On Jan. 3, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu issued an unusual press release that said “the Court’s order puts San Francisco in an impossible situation, practically and legally.”

The city’s outsized reaction came from its concern over the possible scope of Ryu’s order. Tent encampments are illegal in San Francisco under existing city law and can be broken up, but only if the city gives advance notice and offers the people shelter.

The city feared that the order would be read to prevent encampment sweeps until adequate shelter was available for every unsheltered person in the city. The city believed that it should only have to provide a shelter bed for the people displaced when an encampment was swept.

The difference between those interpretations was huge.

Under the city’s reading, it needed only to find a few dozen empty shelter beds on any given day so it could accommodate the people in the particular camp being swept. Under the other reading, it would have to build or acquire thousands of beds — enough for all the unsheltered — a process that would likely take years and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Apparently as a way to get that issue addressed quickly, on Jan. 3, city lawyers filed a so-called “administrative” motion to “clarify” the meaning of Ryu’s order.

Ryu was not pleased.

Despite the urgency of the city’s entreaty, at a hearing on Jan. 12, Ryu found that the city’s lawyers raised the issue improperly, trying to use a procedure for raising low-stakes administrative matters — like asking for permission to raise the page limits of a brief — to raise a clearly substantive issue.

At the hearing, Ryu admonished lawyers for the city (as well as lawyers for the plaintiffs who had followed the same procedure for one of their motions).

She told the lawyers for both sides “you know better” and warned them “not to get off on the wrong foot.”

She went on to make clear that if the city wanted to raise the issue, it should follow proper procedure for substantive motions.

The city did not take the judge up on her offer.

Instead, on Jan. 23, it filed an appeal of her preliminary injunction. A week later, on Feb. 2, it asked Ryu to stay her injunction while the appeal was pending.

In the briefing in support of the stay, city lawyers raised the same legal argument about the scope of the injunction that it had unsuccessfully tried to raise in its Jan. 3 motion to clarify.

That approach clearly bothered Ryu. In Monday’s ruling denying the stay, she emphasized that even though she had invited the city to raise the issue properly, the city had declined to do so. In her view, that approach deprived the court of an opportunity to consider the city’s argument in the context of a proper factual record.

She also found that the city had not met its burden of showing that it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction stayed in place. For example, she pointed out that the order allows the city to require an encampment to move for the time it takes the city to clean the area. She also said the city could continue to offer those in an encampment social services and shelter options.

The finding that the city lawyers failed to follow the appropriate procedure puts the city in a difficult position.

While the city may ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stay the injunction, the appeals court would not only need to take the relatively unusual step of intervening before reaching the merits of the appeal, but do so where there the city arguably didn’t take the proper steps to bring the issue before the court that issued the challenged injunction.

If the appeals court does not intervene, the sweep injunction will likely remain in place until a full trial in the case before Ryu. That trial is currently scheduled for April 3, 2024.

Jen Kwart, a spokesperson for City Attorney David Chiu, stated, “We continue to believe Judge Ryu’s order puts the City in an untenable situation, reaches beyond legal precedent, and exacerbates our homelessness crisis. We look forward to presenting our case on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.”

Hadley Rood, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, said “The Preliminary Injunction order is narrowly tailored and only prevents the City from brutally punishing unhoused people purely because they are homeless.”

Issues involving the city’s handling of homelessness have escalated in recent months. The city’s Board of Supervisors held a hearing on March 21 to consider a plan prepared by the city’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing that was supposed to lay out how to shelter all unsheltered people in the city.

The department declined to do so, concluding that even if it had $1.45 billion and three years to implement, it couldn’t accomplish the requested result because of the difficulty in acquiring sites in the city and building adequate capacity.

The department’s stated inability to provide enough shelter combined with the city attorney’s difficulties in getting a stay seem likely to exacerbate the problems the mayor and board face leading the city in its recovery from the pandemic.

Copyright © 2023 Bay City News, Inc. All rights reserved. Republication, rebroadcast or redistribution without the express written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited. Bay City News is a 24/7 news service covering the greater Bay Area.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Hundreds Still in Emergency Shelters as State Waits on Federal Storm Disaster Declaration Request

Don't Miss

‘Extremely Disturbing’: City Audit Reveals Mayor’s Office of Housing Has $482 Mil in Unspent Funds

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Marin City Public Housing Residents Demand a Voice in County’s Renovation Plans

Representation has been a continuous struggle for the Residents Council, she said in an interview with the Post News Group. In 2014, the tenants took the county to federal court over this issue, and prevailed, resulting in an MOU that was in effect from 2014 to 2024, said McLemore. “Now, they are not responding to our rightful requests to participate. They are not giving us a legal justification for their position.”

Published

3 days ago

May 10, 2026

Oakland Post

The largest housing complex in Marin County, Golden Gate Village residents are for predominantly Black and low-income. Courtesy image.

Tenants say the County of Marin is ignoring federal law requiring resident council participation

By Ken Epstein

Marin City public housing residents say the County is illegally depriving them of their rights to participate in renovation decisions that affect the future of their housing, raising deep concerns over whether the county ultimately will find a way to displace them.

According to regulations established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Marin City public housing residents have the right to organize, elect resident councils, and hold public housing agencies accountable for involving them in management decisions.

Without resident participation, the Board of Housing Commissioners, made up of the five Marin County Board of Supervisors and two resident comissioners, has approved a $226 million project. The plan calls for renovation of the 296 units in Golden Gate Village (GGV) and focuses on interior improvements. The project is scheduled to start in July.

Residents’ concerns have a long history, said Royce McLemore, president of the Golden Gate Village Residents Council and a 50-year resident of Marin City,

With no current MOU mandating training and participation of residents, the legal basis for all the redevelopment decisions made by the county since 2024 is questionable, said Terrie Green, executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience. “We are experiencing voicelessness. If residents had a voice, we wouldn’t be where we are today,” she said.

County decisions include a plan, in line with federal regulations, to convert GGV from public housing to a public-private enterprise that allows for private investment. The Marin Housing Authority has created a limited partnership that includes Burbank Housing – which will renovate the units and manage the property – and Wells Fargo Bank, the investor.

This change in federal policy regarding public housing, which includes a shift to a Section-8 voucher system, has resulted in gentrification across the country, particularly affecting African Americans in cities such as San Francisco.

Shifts in criteria of what is considered affordable could also end up pricing residents out of their living units. At present, low income in Marin County is officially considered $156,000. But the median household income in Marin City is significantly lower at $68,846.

Damian Morgan, a community advocate with Marin City Climate Resilience, questioned why the county is renovating apartments without fixing toxic infrastructure that is impacting the lives of people in GGV.

Morgan said tenants have filed a class action lawsuit because of unsafe conditions at Golden Gate Village.

Residents are also concerned that the County still does not have an adequate family plan for temporary displacement while their apartments are being renovated. Although the County has suggested other community apartments as alternatives, nothing concrete has developed except vacant public housing units that have the same toxic conditions, such as mold and mildew.

Green said it doesn’t make sense. “…Why are we moving people around into temporary housing that’s uninhabitable, when you should be dealing first with the infrastructure, the foundational work, replacing old and rusted water pipes and new sewers.”

Morgan questions the County’s motivation for neglecting infrastructure repairs. “They’re remodeling the units but leaving the decayed infrastructure in place. I feel like they’re just setting this up for it to fail.”

“What slowed it down a little is that GGV is a historic preservation district, but I think what they’re striving for is demolition by neglect,” he said. “The neglect has always been on their part.”

Architect Ora Hatheway said her concern is about cutting corners. “You have to deal with the land issues. You have to deal with grading and drainage, and that’s being brushed under the rug.”

In an interview with KGO TV, Marin County Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters responded to some of these concerns. She said residents are guaranteed the right to return to their homes.

“This is a concern that we take seriously,” she said. “Every resident will move back into their own unit, and we’ve given this to them in writing. Before they leave their unit, we will sign a document together that guarantees their right to return.”

In response to residents who feel left out of the planning process, she said community input has focused on those affected by the first phase of the project. “So other residents may not have heard quite as much or felt like they had as much contact. But if there are residents who have concerns, we’re happy to hear from them. You can contact my office or the housing authority directly,” she said.

While County leaders may be giving some updates to some tenants, they are not sitting at the table with the Residents Council nor giving residents a voice in decision-making, said McLemore.

Without a voice in decisions, tenants are worried that Black people may be forced out of public housing, resulting in gentrification, she said in an interview with ABC 7. It’s still paternalistic, she said. “It’s still that ‘We know what’s best for you.’’’

Several years ago, the Residents Council proposed a land trust plan that would give tenants homeownership rights. Though the plan had broad support throughout the county, it was rejected by the Board of Supervisors

In the final analysis, Green said, for Marin City tenants the fight is not just for decent housing but to maintain their community with dignity under conditions of mutual respect.

“We’re talking about people who came here to work in the shipyards during World War II to bring about peace and safety to this country,” she said. “Look at the discrimination we’ve faced down through the years. Look at the life-span issue of Marin City folks – almost 20 years less than the rest of the County.”

“We want educational equity so our children will have decent schools. We need a land trust, property ownership, so we can have wealth creation. Marin City needs the same quality of life as other communities in Marin County.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 6 – 12, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of may 6 – 12, 2026

Published

3 days ago

May 10, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

On the Frontlines of Hate: NAACP Links Victims to Critical Support

The NAACP CA/HI has a long and well-established record of supporting victims of discrimination and hate crimes — providing critical referrals and, when necessary, direct assistance through legal advocacy and other forms of support. Beyond responding to incidents, the organization continues to advocate on broader civil rights issues, including voting rights and legal protections. It has also worked to counter efforts at the state and federal levels that could weaken the voting power of communities of color.

Published

2 weeks ago

May 1, 2026

Oakland Post

NAACP members at a recent advocacy day in Sacramento urging lawmakers to protect voting rights. Photo courtesy of California Black Media.

By Joe Kocurek
California Black Media

The California/Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP (CA/HI NAACP) has expanded its efforts to respond to rising hate incidents and civil rights complaints across California, supported in part by funding from California’s Stop the Hate Program

Through that grant, NAACP CA/HI has strengthened its ability to connect individuals experiencing hate or discrimination with critical resources. This includes referring those who file complaints to the CA vs Hate hotline, a statewide, non-emergency hate crime and incident reporting hotline and online portal created to help counter a more than 50% increase in reported hate crimes in California between 2020 and 2024. The system helps ensure incidents are documented, and victims are guided toward appropriate support.

LaJuana Bivens says the work of NAACP is as urgent as ever. Photo by Regina Wilson, California Black Media.

LaJuana Bivens, who has served in a number of roles within the NAACP, said California has seen an increase in civil rights violations and hate-related incidents.

“We have 52 branches, and they are constantly receiving complaints,” she said. “So, without the Stop the Hate, we would not be able to refer those cases up to attorneys at the state level. A lot of the people would not have had an opportunity to be heard.”

Carmen-Nicole Cox helps survivors of hate with their legal options. Photo courtesy of Carmen-Nicole Cox.

Carmen-Nicole Cox, an attorney who works with NAACP CA/HI – as a part of California’s Stop the Hate Program – provides legal consultation to victims of hate incidents and discrimination through her legal practice, the Cox Firm for Law and Policy.

She said the complaints she receives span a wide range of issues.

“People are having home builders and landlords refusing to provide repairs, a student was denied promotion in an academic program, and targeted scrutiny at work,” she said. “It’s typically employment; it’s housing; it’s education.

“We’ll meet and they’ll share their experiences,” she said. “And then I make assessments about possible legal claims.”

According to the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), nearly 1,200 reports of hate against minority groups were submitted in 2024 through the CA vs Hate hotline and online portal for non-emergency incidents.

While the California/Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP, which has tens of thousands of members, does not directly investigate hate incidents or crimes, it plays a key role in connecting victims to the state’s reporting systems and support services.

Beyond responding to incidents, the organization continues to advocate on broader civil rights issues, including voting rights and legal protections. It has also worked to counter efforts at the state and federal levels that could weaken the voting power of communities of color.

Bivens recently traveled to Sacramento to speak with state lawmakers about voting rights during an advocacy day event hosted by the organization.

“It’s just so hard for communities of color to be up to date because of all of the confusing information coming from the federal level,” she said. “I love our great state of California because here it is possible to vote by mail and to vote early.

“And I’m seeing that trying to be eroded. So, I’m here to urge continued support for vote by mail and early voting.”

When Texas moved to redraw congressional districts in ways critics said would dilute minority voting strength, NAACP CA/HI supported the passage of Proposition 50 in California. The organization also intervened in United States v. Shirley Weber, where federal officials sought access to unredacted California voter records, including Social Security numbers, raising concerns about misuse and voter intimidation.

Cultivating the advocacy and leaderships of young people is central to NAACP’s mission to fight racism and dismantle inequality. Photo courtesy of California Black Media.

A federal district court dismissed that case in January 2026.

The organization’s current work builds on a long history of civil rights advocacy. Today, Bivens says, the organization’s mission remains as urgent as ever.

“We are the oldest, boldest, most feared Civil Rights organization,” Bivens said. “What we do every day is fight for better housing, education, economic development and political inclusion. We take it on because there are just so many people who need that support.

“You would be amazed that our phones ring every single day.”

Get Support After Hate:

California vs Hate is a non-emergency, multilingual hotline and online portal offering confidential support for hate crimes and incidents. Victims and witnesses can get help anonymously by calling 833-8-NO-HATE (833-866-4283), Monday to Friday, 9 a.m.–6 p.m. PT, or online at any time. Anonymous. Confidential. No Police. No ICE.

This story was produced in partnership with CA vs Hate. Join them for the first-ever CA Civil Rights Summit on May 11. More information at www.cavshate.org/summit.

https://youtu.be/_k7UVhI-sN8