Kurt Hipp, et al. v. The City of Vallejo

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the City of Vallejo from removing them from encampments near City Hall. The court concluded that Plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success or serious questions on their ADA Title II, state-created danger, or due process claims. The court ordered that the Temporary Restraining Order expire on July 25, 2025, while requiring the City to provide at least 72 hours’ written notice before seeking to remove the encampments.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success or serious questions on their claim that the City denied reasonable accommodations. Title II required the City to account for Plaintiffs' disabilities in enforcing Administrative Rule 7.10, but Plaintiffs' requested accommodations—remaining indefinitely at their current locations or receiving hotel housing—would likely fundamentally alter the City's encampment-removal program or require creation of a new program.
2. Plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success or serious questions on their state-created-danger claim because they did not identify an actual, particularized danger created or increased by a state actor's affirmative action.
3. Plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on their substantive and procedural due process claims because they did not identify a constitutionally protected interest deprived by the City's enforcement of Rule 7.10.
4. The court did not grant preliminary injunctive relief based on the alleged disposal of personal property or an alleged violation of the prior temporary restraining order because those matters were outside the present motion; the property injury was past and economic damages were an adequate remedy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction based on their claim that Vallejo violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide reasonable accommodations during enforcement of Administrative Rule 7.10.
2. Whether Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on a Fourteenth Amendment state-created-danger claim based on the City's planned removal of their temporary residences.
3. Whether the City's implementation of Administrative Rule 7.10 violated Plaintiffs' substantive or procedural due process rights.
4. Whether the alleged disposal of personal property or any violation of the prior temporary restraining order warranted preliminary injunctive relief in this motion.

Disposition

other