Mott v. Lane

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: April 15, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-02771
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RICKY MOTT; ABC MINING, Plaintiffs, -against- JUDGE SEAN LANE, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT; ATTORNEY SCHELL; ATTORNEY MANZANO; PARK HOUSE PLAZA LLC; RGN NEW YORK 25-CV-2771 (LTS) XXX LLC; TIM; DEANDRA HARDY; JUDGE ORDER ZELAN; CLERK OF THE CITY COURT OF NYC; CLEANING TEAM WORKING AT SITE 400; PARK HOUSE PLAZA SECURITY TEAM; PARK HOUSE CONSTRUCTION MAMAGEMENT LLC; ASSOCIATE MANAGER 5TH FLOOR SUITE 500 NYC NY; CLERK OF COURT US SDNY, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed an “emergency judicial notice” seeking: (1) issuance of restraining orders “against the defendants to prevent further intimidation and illegal actions against ABC Mining and its staff”; (2) a declaratory judgment “affirming that the defendants’ actions are unlawful and in violation of the plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights”; (3) an “injunction to halt the defendants’ ongoing discriminatory practices and to protect the plaintiffs’ rights to due process and legal protection”; and (4) “emergency issuance of the summons and complaint to prevent further violations and to ensure the plaintiffs’ rights are upheld.” (ECF 12 at 5-7.) 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 (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 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 “emergency judicial notice” (ECF No. 12) is denied. The Court will issue an explanatory order at a later date. CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s request for an “emergency judicial notice” and issuance of restraining orders, a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and emergency issuance of summonses (ECF No. 12) is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion.

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: April 15, 2025 New York, New York

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