Goldstein v. The Bowery

S.D. New York

Goldstein v. The Bowery

DecidedAugust 7, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-05683

StatusUnknown

This text of Goldstein v. The Bowery (Goldstein v. The Bowery) 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

Goldstein v. The Bowery, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JESSE S. GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff, 24-CV-5683 (LTS) -against- ORDER THE BOWERY DEFENDANTS, ET AL., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this complaint naming dozens of defendants. He alleges that Defendant Bowery Mission “controls a den of thieves containing murderers and rapists because of New York City being a sanctuary city . . . .” (ECF 2 at 3.) He asks the Court to order Defendants to show cause why a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction should not issue. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to provide him “a short term rental in Soho,” his first choice, or “a quality hotel in lower Manhattan.” (Id.) To obtain temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, a 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). 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 an order to show cause (ECF No. 2) is denied. The Court will issue an explanatory order at a later date.

CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s request for an order to show cause (ECF No. 2) is denied. 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). SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2024 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JESSE S. GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff, 24-CV-5683 (LTS) -against- ORDER THE BOWERY DEFENDANTS, ET AL., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this complaint naming dozens of defendants. He alleges that Defendant Bowery Mission “controls a den of thieves containing murderers and rapists because of New York City being a sanctuary city . . . .” (ECF 2 at 3.) He asks the Court to order Defendants to show cause why a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction should not issue. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to provide him “a short term rental in Soho,” his first choice, or “a quality hotel in lower Manhattan.” (Id.) To obtain temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, a 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). 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 an order to show cause (ECF No. 2) is denied. The Court will issue an explanatory order at a later date.

CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s request for an order to show cause (ECF No. 2) is denied. 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). SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2024 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Goldstein v. The Bowery, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-the-bowery-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack