Brock v. The City of New York et al

Filing 8

ORDER re: #3 Order to Show Cause - Unsigned filed by Mandela Brock. Plaintiffs request for a TRO and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3) is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 1/7/2022) (kv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 1:21-cv-11094-AT-SDA Document 8 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

1/7/2022

MANDELA BROCK,
Plaintiff,
-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK; MAYOR ERIC
ADAMS,

21-CV-11094 (AT)
ORDER

Defendants.
ANALISA TORRES, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed an “Order to Show Cause for Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order,” requesting preliminary injunctive relief. To obtain
such relief, Plaintiff must show: (1) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a
likelihood of success on the merits of his case or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the
merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in
his favor. See UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. W.V. Univ. Hosps., Inc., 660 F. 3d 643, 648 (2d Cir. 2011)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Wright v. Giuliani, 230 F.3d 543, 547 (2000).
Preliminary injunctive relief “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be
granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Moore v.
Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
At this time, Plaintiff’s submissions do not demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on
the merits, or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for
litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in his favor. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
request for a TRO and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3) is denied without prejudice to renewal
at a later date.

Case 1:21-cv-11094-AT-SDA Document 8 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s request for a TRO and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3) is denied without
prejudice to renewal at a later date.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant
demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on
the docket.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 7, 2022
New York, New York

2