Vallejo, CA – In a significant legal victory for the rights of unhoused individuals, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has issued a preliminary injunction protecting Evelyn Davis Alfred, a 64-year-old disabled African-American woman, from being forcibly removed from her shelter by the City of Vallejo. This ruling stops the City from dismantling her shelter, highlighting potential violations of her constitutional rights and the severe harm she would face if displaced. This may mark the first preliminary injunction since the case of City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.
Ms. Alfred has lived in a self-constructed shelter for nearly two years, managing multiple disabilities, including severe osteoarthritis and degenerative disc disease. Despite her challenges and the absence of alternative housing, the City of Vallejo had served her removal notices without providing adequate accommodations or support. The court determined that removing Ms. Alfred without offering alternatives would pose significant risks to her well-being and raised serious legal questions about the City’s obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fourteenth Amendment’s state-created danger doctrine.
Attorney Anthony Prince, General Counsel for the California Homeless Union, praised the ruling as a pivotal moment for protecting the rights of the unhoused. “This decision reinforces that cities cannot sweep unhoused residents off public land without considering their fundamental rights and needs. The court recognized Ms. Alfred as more than a statistic—she is a human being entitled to the same legal protections as any housed individual.”
Co-counsel Andrea Henson highlighted the case’s broader implications, stating, “Cities like Vallejo, which enact sweeping anti-camping laws, cannot expect unhoused individuals to vanish or blame them for the lack of housing options. Despite her disabilities, Ms. Alfred applied to over 19 housing programs without assistance from the City. This case demonstrates that our constitutional protections are vital, as Judge Coggins noted that ‘the Defendant City has explicitly stated it will not permit Plaintiff to move or camp anywhere within the City…’ and emphasized the public interest in maintaining constitutional protections for those most in need.”
Eli Smith, an advocate with the Vallejo Homeless Union and supporter of Ms. Alfred, pointed out, “The real hardship of poverty lies in the loss of choices. Many cities unjustly target unhoused individuals operating within a framework they did not choose. People construct shelters out of necessity. This injunction highlights that the homelessness crisis is fundamentally a civil rights issue.”
Robert Toepfer, a member of the Vallejo Homeless Union, remarked, “This legal precedent establishes that the City of Vallejo cannot displace unhoused individuals arbitrarily. We urge the local government to enhance transparency and clarity in its actions. Most people are just one misfortune away from facing my situation. The judge’s ruling safeguards us all.”
Kathy Salm, an officer in the Vallejo Homeless Union, emphasized, “This injunction serves as a reminder to the city that we are not forgotten.”
Shawn O’Malley, another member of the Vallejo Homeless Union, shared, “I am a registered voter, a taxpayer, a husband, and I’m homeless, but I remain a human being. The judge’s ruling illustrates that my human rights are disregarded when my home is swept away.”
This ruling highlights the ongoing challenges faced by unhoused individuals in California, as cities continue to enforce aggressive removal policies without providing viable alternatives. Advocates view this injunction as a crucial step toward increased accountability and humane treatment for the unhoused population.
The case will move forward as the court monitors the City’s compliance with its legal responsibilities.
