Lopez v. New York City Police Dept.

S.D. New York

Lopez v. New York City Police Dept.

DecidedJune 27, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-05360

StatusUnknown

This text of Lopez v. New York City Police Dept. (Lopez v. New York City Police Dept.) 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

Lopez v. New York City Police Dept., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARIAH LOPEZ, Plaintiff, 1:25-CV-5360 (LTS) -against- ORDER NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Mariah Lopez, who is proceeding pro se, has filed submissions requesting immediate preliminary injunctive relief in the form of what appears to be a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction. (ECF 1, 6, & 7.) To obtain such relief, Plaintiff must show: (1) that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits of her action 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 her 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 (2d Cir. 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 abovementioned 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 her favor. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s requests for immediate preliminary injunctive relief. (See ECF 1, 6, & 7.) The Court will issue an explanatory order at a later date. CONCLUSION The Court denies Plaintiff’s requests for immediate preliminary injunctive relief. (See ECF 1, 6, & 7.) 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: June 27, 2025 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 MARIAH LOPEZ, Plaintiff, 1:25-CV-5360 (LTS) -against- ORDER NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Mariah Lopez, who is proceeding pro se, has filed submissions requesting immediate preliminary injunctive relief in the form of what appears to be a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction. (ECF 1, 6, & 7.) To obtain such relief, Plaintiff must show: (1) that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits of her action 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 her 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 (2d Cir. 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 abovementioned 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 her favor. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s requests for immediate preliminary injunctive relief. (See ECF 1, 6, & 7.) The Court will issue an explanatory order at a later date. CONCLUSION The Court denies Plaintiff’s requests for immediate preliminary injunctive relief. (See ECF 1, 6, & 7.) 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: June 27, 2025 New York, New York

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lopez v. New York City Police Dept., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-new-york-city-police-dept-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack