Kabbaj v. New York City Police Department et al

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 38 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Transcript, Affadavit and Amendment addressed to Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis from Younes Kabbaj dated 10/22/2015, filed by Younes Kabbaj, 35 MOTION FOR INJUNCTION, filed by Younes Kabbaj. Mr. Kabbaj's motion for an injunction is therefore denied. This Order resolves docket entry nos. 35 and 38. This case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Ellis for general pre-trial management. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/16/2015) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (spo) Modified on 12/17/2015 (spo).

-~---~~-----------------------------

USDCSDNY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DOCl"\lE:\T
ELECTRO\lC:\LLY FILED

-------------------------------------------------------X

DOC#:
D:\TE FILED:

YOUNES KABBAJ,

lk lf'~O\)

Plaintiff,
No. 15 CV 3627-LTS-RLE

-v-

..,

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.

-------------------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a motion by pro se Plaintiff Younes Kabbaj for an injunction
against the City ofNew York and the United States. (Docket entry nos. 35, 38.) Mr. Kabbaj's
motion, which is accompanied by a lengthy recitation of facts, requests: (1) an injunction
requiring law enforcement to videotape any questioning of Mr. Kabbaj, and (2) an injunction
prohibiting law enforcement from preventing Mr. Kabbaj from recording interactions he has
with law enforcement.
Plaintiff alleges that federal law enforcement officials "are using special
technology whereby when they know they are going to approach Plaintiff to threaten him or tell
him things that they do not want to be recorded, they merely use various technical means to
prevent Plaintiffs digital devices from recording." (Id. at 34-35.) Additionally, Plaintiff claims
that a prior video record of an arrest by the New York Police Department ("NYPD") was deleted
from an encrypted device. (Id. at 35.)
To demonstrate that injunctive relief is appropriate, a party must show "(1)
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood that the moving party will suffer irreparable
harm if a preliminary injunction is not granted; (3) that the balance of hardships tips in the

moving party's favor; and (4) that the public interest is not disserved by relief." JBR, Inc. v.
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., 618 F. App'x 31,33 (2d Cir. 2015). The conclusory allegations
contained in Mr. Kabbaj's motion regarding past events and the alleged use of technology to
defeat his devices are insufficient to establish that the events in question happened in the way
that Plaintiff alleges that they did. They are further insufficient to demonstrate that Plaintiff is
likely to suffer such injury in the future in a manner that cannot be addressed with money
damages. See Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 1979)
("For it has always been true that irreparable injury means injury for which a monetary award
cannot be adequate compensation and that where money damages is adequate compensation a
preliminary injunction will not issue."). Mr. Kabbaj's motion for an injunction is therefore
denied.
This Order resolves docket entry nos. 35 and 38. This case remains referred to
Magistrate Judge Ellis for general pre-trial management.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
December ~' 2015

~WAm

United States District Judge

ORDER REMOTION FOR INJUNCTION.WPD

VERSION DECEMBER

16, 2015

2