Abdullah v. Delgado

S.D. New York

Abdullah v. Delgado

DecidedMarch 21, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-00137

StatusUnknown

This text of Abdullah v. Delgado (Abdullah v. Delgado) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abdullah v. Delgado, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

eres el 2B DOCUMENT ELECTRON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: ACAELY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK —— DATE FILED:_ 3/21/2025 ABDULLAH ABDUL HAQQ, Plaintiff, -against- 24-CV-0137 (MMG) SERGEANT SMITH; LIEUTENANT ORDER EDWARDO CHANDRADEO; P.O. RANDY DELGADO; P.O. M. DUCASSE, Defendants. MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: On March 19, 2025, Plaintiff Abdullah Abdul Haqq (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. See Dkt. No. 29 (the “TRO Motion”). “The standard[s] for granting a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Procedure are identical.” Spencer Trask Software & Info. Servs., LLC v. RPost Int'l, Ltd., 190 F. Supp. 2d 577, 580 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Plaintiffs seeking a TRO must show that “(1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.” New York v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 477 F. Supp. 3d 279, 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). The TRO Motion does not provide any basis, factual or legal, for the relief sought by Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 29 at 1. Rather, it includes only bracketed placeholders for the standards that do not appear to have been completed by Plaintiff. See id. (“On [insert date], Plaintiff was involved in an incident involving members of the New York City Police Department where [provide details about what happened].”). The “First Set of Interrogatories” accompanying the TRO Motion likewise provide no additional information on which the Court can adequately evaluate the above factors. See id. at 3. The TRO Motion is thus DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. No. 29. The Clerk of Court is further respectfully directed to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff. Finally, Plaintiff is advised that the discovery phase of his case is proceeding in front of Magistrate Judge Ricardo. To the extent Plaintiff has concerns regarding the schedule or pace of

this matter, or the current discovery plan, or Defendants’ compliance with discovery requests, he should raise those concerns to Magistrate Judge Ricardo. Dated: March 21, 2025 New York, New York

sr — United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

eres el 2B DOCUMENT ELECTRON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: ACAELY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK —— DATE FILED:_ 3/21/2025 ABDULLAH ABDUL HAQQ, Plaintiff, -against- 24-CV-0137 (MMG) SERGEANT SMITH; LIEUTENANT ORDER EDWARDO CHANDRADEO; P.O. RANDY DELGADO; P.O. M. DUCASSE, Defendants. MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: On March 19, 2025, Plaintiff Abdullah Abdul Haqq (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. See Dkt. No. 29 (the “TRO Motion”). “The standard[s] for granting a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Procedure are identical.” Spencer Trask Software & Info. Servs., LLC v. RPost Int'l, Ltd., 190 F. Supp. 2d 577, 580 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Plaintiffs seeking a TRO must show that “(1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.” New York v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 477 F. Supp. 3d 279, 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). The TRO Motion does not provide any basis, factual or legal, for the relief sought by Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 29 at 1. Rather, it includes only bracketed placeholders for the standards that do not appear to have been completed by Plaintiff. See id. (“On [insert date], Plaintiff was involved in an incident involving members of the New York City Police Department where [provide details about what happened].”). The “First Set of Interrogatories” accompanying the TRO Motion likewise provide no additional information on which the Court can adequately evaluate the above factors. See id. at 3. The TRO Motion is thus DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. No. 29. The Clerk of Court is further respectfully directed to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff. Finally, Plaintiff is advised that the discovery phase of his case is proceeding in front of Magistrate Judge Ricardo. To the extent Plaintiff has concerns regarding the schedule or pace of

this matter, or the current discovery plan, or Defendants’ compliance with discovery requests, he should raise those concerns to Magistrate Judge Ricardo. Dated: March 21, 2025 New York, New York

sr — United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Abdullah v. Delgado, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abdullah-v-delgado-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack