Call Center Company in Vallejo, CA

VALLEJO, Calif. —

Lanes remain closed on Interstate 80 eastbound at State Route 37 after a hazmat spill in Vallejo.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

????????FULL FREEWAY CLOSURE, I-80????????I-80 eastbound will be closed at SR-37. I-80 westbound will be closed at American Canyon Rd.Due to a hazmat situation, all traffic will be diverted off the freeway. Hazmat crews are on scene. Unknown ETO at this time. Use alternate routes pic.twitter.com/epyYB0pYuI

— CHP SOLANO (@ChpSolano) March 8, 2025

All westbound lanes have reopened. The #4 and #5 lanes on the eastbound side remain closed.

Motorists are advised to use caution when driving in the area.

Hazmat crews are on scene. It is unknown what the pollution is.

The cause of the hazmat situation is unknown.

This story was curated by Hearst's KCRA Alert Desk.

See news happening? Send us your photos or videos if it’s safe to do so at kcra.com/upload.

If this story happened near you or someone you know, share this article with friends in your area using the KCRA mobile app so they know what is happening near them. The KCRA app is available for free in Apple’s App Store and on Google Play.

See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

In summary

This appears to be the first such injunction since the U.S. Supreme Court let cities crack down on homeless encampments in California and beyond.

The Bay Area city of Vallejo is putting California cities’ newfound power to clear homeless encampments to the test.

A federal judge last month stopped the city from dismantling the makeshift shelter of 64-year-old Evelyn Alfred, which she erected nearly two years ago on an empty strip of land next to a residential neighborhood. The ruling proves that, even as more cities in California crack down on encampments with sweeps and criminal charges, there are pathways open for unhoused people to fight back.

“I think now what this shows is that there is hope,” said Andrea Henson, an attorney who represents Alfred and also leads the Berkeley-based nonprofit aid organization Where Do We Go?

Before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last summer in a case out of Grants Pass, Oregon, Alfred’s win might not have been a big deal. Back then, legal precedent said it was “cruel and unusual” to punish people for sleeping outside if they had nowhere else to go. As a result, cities had to be careful to offer shelter before clearing a camp. If they didn’t, a judge might very well step in and stop the sweep.

That all changed in June, when the court caused a dramatic shift by finding, in Grants Pass v. Johnson, that cities can ban people from setting up homeless encampments even if there are no shelter beds available.

The recent order stopping Vallejo from clearing Alfred’s camp appears to be the first such federal injunction since the Grants Pass decision, according to several legal experts interviewed by CalMatters.

“Cities and other governmental entities have been using the Grants Pass decision as if it was a green light (to clear encampments),” said Anthony Prince, one of the attorneys representing Alfred. This ruling, he said, proves that thinking is wrong.

Representatives from the city of Vallejo did not respond to CalMatters interview requests.

Many city leaders and even California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, had cheered the Supreme Court decision, assuming it would give local governments freedom to remove camps that had taken over sidewalks, city parks and other public spaces. Advocates for the rights of unhoused people were appalled, worried cities would now indiscriminately criminalize people just for being homeless.

But this recent Vallejo case shows it’s not so simple. As a result, legal experts and other attorneys who represent homeless plaintiffs throughout the state are paying attention to Alfred’s fight to stay put.

“I think we’re all watching closely to see what the courts will do,” said Ron Hochbaum, a law professor and director of the Buccola Family Homeless Advocacy Clinic at the University of the Pacific.

The dwelling Alfred is fighting to keep is made out of tarps, wood and other materials, and has a roof, windows and a locking door, according to court documents. Her lawyers argued it’s the only thing that protects Alfred — who walks with a cane and wears a back brace due to her osteoarthritis and other medical conditions — from the elements.

The city of Vallejo first informed Alfred of its intent to remove her camp in October, and Alfred sued shortly after. In November, a federal judge temporarily blocked the city from clearing Alfred’s camp by issuing a temporary restraining order — an order that lasts until the court holds a hearing on the issue.

In February, the court granted a preliminary injunction, which is a much bigger win: It lasts longer and comes only after both sides have made extensive arguments in court and the judge has had ample time to deliberate. This appears to be the first one issued in federal court since Grants Pass. It means Alfred can stay put until her case settles or goes to trial.

Alfred is on several waitlists for affordable housing, but hasn’t yet been offered a placement, according to her lawyers. When she asked where she could go if she were to leave her campsite, the city’s attorney said she could not camp anywhere else in Vallejo, according to court documents. The city does not provide shelter or transitional housing. Therefore, Alfred’s lawyers argued, she would be put in harm’s way if she were forced to leave her camp, especially due to her age, physical and mental disabilities and, as a woman, her vulnerability to sexual assault.

U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins sided with Alfred.

“Removing Plaintiff’s shelter while knowing Plaintiff has no alternatives is likely to expose her to more dangerous conditions than she currently faces by depriving her of protection from the elements, hygiene facilities, and access to life essentials, creating a known and particularized danger to Plaintiff’s safety and welfare,” she wrote.

If the city knowingly puts Alfred in danger, that could violate her right to “due process” under the 14th Amendment, Coggins wrote.

The city, on the other hand, argued it should be allowed to remove Alfred’s camp because the camp presents health hazards caused by human waste, her makeshift dwelling violates multiple building codes, and in erecting the dwelling, she damaged a city-owned fence.

“Plaintiff has been properly noticed and provided with additional time to remove her encampment,” attorneys for the city wrote in a court filing. “The City must now be allowed to enforce its law and remove Plaintiff’s encampment.”

But Coggins found no proof that Alfred’s camp presents any “weighty” health and safety concerns.

Now the case will continue on toward a trial or settlement. The city has filed a motion to dismiss, which Coggins is scheduled to hear in May.

Before 2018, homeless plaintiffs often used the 14th Amendment (the basis for Alfred’s win) and the 4th Amendment (which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government) to challenge encampment sweeps in court.

Then, the federal Ninth Circuit appellate court ruled in Martin v. Boise that punishing unhoused people for camping in public if they have nowhere else to go violates the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. After that, the 8th Amendment became the weapon of choice for lawyers representing unhoused people.

And it got results. In 2022, lawyers using the 8th Amendment to sue San Francisco won a major victory: an order that stopped the city from enforcing several anti-camping laws as long as there weren’t enough shelter beds available.

Then, last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Grants Pass was not engaging in cruel and unusual punishment by banning encampments despite a lack of shelter beds. Suddenly, the 8th Amendment was off the table. Now, homeless plaintiffs and the lawyers who represent them are turning to other strategies. The Vallejo case proves that those can still work, even as cities throughout California ban encampments.

Alfred’s attorneys also claimed the city of Vallejo violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate Alfred’s disabilities as it tried to clear her camp. Coggins disagreed because the city granted Alfred more time to move, and granted her request for help packing her belongings.

But legal experts said disabilities act claims are likely to pop up in future cases. In a 2023 survey of homeless Californians, one in five said they used a cane, walker, wheelchair or other mobility aid, according to the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative. Survey participants also reported that shelters and subsidized housing weren’t accessible.

“That’s certainly an issue,” said Laura Riley, a social justice attorney and law professor at UC Berkeley. “We know that people who are unhoused disproportionately have disabilities. The plaintiff in this case has multiple disabilities, both mobility and mental health disabilities. So making sure that they honor the protections of the ADA for the unhoused population is important. And we know that that’s not happening, especially during sweeps.”

Alfred’s injunction may not stand alone for long. The same lawyers who represent her also sued the city of Berkeley to stop the removal of a camp at 8th and Harrison streets. Another lawsuit is attempting to stop an encampment sweep in the Marin County town of Fairfax.

“Until localities and the state make the appropriate investments in shelter and housing,” Hochbaum said, “this litigation is going to continue.”