Brock v. The City of New York

S.D. New York

Brock v. The City of New York

DecidedJanuary 7, 2022

Docket1:21-cv-11094

StatusUnknown

This text of Brock v. The City of New York (Brock v. The City of New York) 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

Brock v. The City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE BIDEDS 1/7/2022 __ MANDELA BROCK, Plaintiff, -against- 21-CV-11094 (AT) THE CITY OF NEW YORK; MAYOR ERIC ORDER ADAMS, 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. WV. 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.

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

ANALISA TORRES) United States District Judge

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

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE BIDEDS 1/7/2022 __ MANDELA BROCK, Plaintiff, -against- 21-CV-11094 (AT) THE CITY OF NEW YORK; MAYOR ERIC ORDER ADAMS, 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. WV. 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.

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

ANALISA TORRES) United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brock v. The City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-v-the-city-of-new-york-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack