Judge rejects Camp Nenookaasi’s request for temporary ban on evictions a second time
This story comes to you from Sahan Journal through a partnership with MPR News.
By Katelyn Vue | Sahan Journal
A judge rejected Camp Nenookaasi’s request to put a temporary stop to evictions of the homeless encampment while it sues Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for alleged constitutional violations.
U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud issued his ruling Monday, saying that the camp’s motion for a temporary restraining order was moot because it was not specific to the camp’s current location, and because there is a lack of evidence that the city has impending plans for another eviction.
The camp’s attorneys and a camp organizer did not immediately return messages seeking comment Tuesday. A city spokesperson declined to comment on the matter.
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
Tostrud also noted that the case lists four individuals as plaintiffs and does not name Camp Nenookaasi as a plaintiff, so the request should apply to the individuals’ specific circumstances. There is no evidence that any of the plaintiffs are currently living at the camp, he wrote, adding that the plaintiffs’ two attorneys had “problematic” answers about that issue.
One attorney said at a hearing last Thursday that all four plaintiffs lived at the camp, and cited a Star Tribune article from Feb. 29 that did not name any of the plaintiffs. A second attorney said one plaintiff lived at the camp and that she believed a second also lived there, but had no information about the third and fourth plaintiffs, the judge wrote.
“Regardless, these facts are not in the record, and counsels’ responses do not eliminate uncertainty regarding the issue,” read the judge’s order. “To put it directly, it is difficult to understand—and Plaintiffs have not explained—how a Plaintiff who does not reside in the camp today would have standing to seek prospective relief. Without record evidence establishing that a Plaintiff resides in the camp’s current location, it would seem irresponsible to consider Plaintiffs’ requests for relief with respect to this site.”
Tostrud added that the motion did not cite what authority could prevent the city from removing “trespassers no matter what government property those trespassers might choose to occupy.”
The camp is in its fifth iteration at 2839 14th Ave. S., which is a city-owned lot. Camp organizer Nicole Mason told Sahan Journal in early March that two plaintiffs live at the camp.
The camp has occupied several sites in the East Phillips and Phillips neighborhoods in south Minneapolis, and has a large Native population. The city evicted the camp from city-owned lots three times between January and early February; a fire on Feb. 29 destroyed the fourth site and prompted residents to move to the current location.
Tostrud heard arguments in federal court last Thursday from attorneys representing the camp and city. Lead attorney Kira Kelley represented four plaintiffs from Camp Nenookaasi — Cheryl Sagataw, DeAnthony Barnes, Roberta Strong and Travis Neloms — and argued that the city did not follow its own guidelines for the last two evictions.
The city did not issue vacate notices ahead of time for those evictions, violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing civilians due process, she said. The city also violated the plaintiffs’ Eighth and Fourth Amendment rights, which protect civilians from cruel and unusual punishment, and unreasonable search and seizure of property.
The plaintiffs were seeking a temporary ban on evictions until they could resolve a lawsuit that was filed against Frey in January for the alleged constitutional violations. The camp unsuccessfully sought a temporary ban in January as well.
Tostrud presided over the camp’s January request and ruled against them at the time, saying there was no substantial evidence to support their case.