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.

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?