A judge on Friday granted an extension of a restraining order blocking San Luis Obispo County officials from removing residents of a controversial safe parking site, providing a temporary respite for about a dozen people fighting to stay.
District judge André Birotte Jr. extended the temporary restraining order against the county for 31 days — until Monday, April 29 at 3 p.m.
The latest movement from the district court in the Central District of California builds on a temporary restraining order granted on March 15 which blocked the county's bid to remove residents from the Oklahoma Avenue safe parking site until Friday, March 29.
While the extension is a victory for the nearly dozen residents who remain at the site and the group representing them — the San Luis Obispo County Homeless Union — judge Birotte Jr. said the court is "not likely" to extend interim relief beyond what was ordered Friday.
Irreparable harm and evidence of a lice infestation
The court's temporary restraining order March 15 was based in part on the risk of potentially irreparable harm caused to those staying at the safe parking site if forced to leave. The removal would effectively violate their 14th Amendment due process rights by placing them in a "position of danger" because they are low-income, the court said, and, in the words of the plaintiffs, have nowhere else to go.
RELATED: SLO County's homeless parking site remains open after judge issues restraining order
The court was skeptical of the claim the plaintiffs had nowhere else to go, given the multiple shelter options available throughout the county. The court nonetheless granted the temporary restraining order, telling the parties involved to spend the period leading up to the March 29 deadline searching for viable alternative shelter options.
At a March 27 show-cause hearing, county officials pointed to the 40 Prado Homeless Services Center in San Luis Obispo, saying the CAPSLO-run program was available to the 10 or 11 remaining Oklahoma Avenue site residents.
The plaintiffs countered, introducing evidence suggesting the shelter at 40 Prado Road had a lice infestation and was unsuitable. The evidence included statements from residents of the facility, images of people with bites, and hospital discharge instructions.
That evidence gave the court good cause to extend the temporary restraining order to the updated April 29 deadline since the shelter most readily available had "foregoing concerns," the court said.
A temporary option and a final extension
The safe parking site at Oklahoma Avenue was never supposed to be a permanent accommodation, the court said. The facility — opened in August 2021 — was meant to provide residents with a 90-day window to find other housing options. The plaintiffs signed a contract acknowledging as much, the court said.
RELATED: Grand jury report critical of safe parking site, other county facilities OK
The plaintiffs, who have resided at the safe parking site since its opening roughly two and a half years ago, faulted CAPSLO for their extended stay, claiming the organization failed to help them find better housing options in any meaningful way.
The court said since the beginning of this year, evidence indicates the opposite may be true: that the plaintiffs have refused to engage with CAPSLO officials by, for example, refusing to answer the door or by falsely claiming they were going to leave the facility and then failing to do so.
Alternative options to the Oklahoma Avenue safe parking site presented by the plaintiffs' counsel included allowing them to stay at the site in their RVs or parking their RVs on certain streets, in defiance of county ordinance.
The court found these suggestions insufficient, essentially maintaining the status quo for an open-ended period of time, the court said.
The county's last closure notice was issued on February 2, 2024. The extension of this temporary restraining order to April 29, the court said, would be almost equivalent to the original 90-day period the plaintiffs originally agreed to when they first joined the parking site years ago. (Feb. 2 to April 29 is 87 days.)
The court said it is "not likely to extend interim relief" beyond the April 29 deadline as the plaintiffs' reasoning for staying longer will likely not have merit.
