Goldstein v. The Bowery

Background

Jesse S. Goldstein, who was representing himself, filed a complaint naming dozens of defendants. He alleged that the Bowery Mission “controls a den of thieves containing murderers and rapists because of New York City being a sanctuary city.” He asked the court to issue an order requiring the defendants to explain why a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction should not be entered. A temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction are forms of emergency court relief. Goldstein sought an order requiring the defendants to provide him with either “a short term rental in Soho” or “a quality hotel in lower Manhattan.”

Legal standard and analysis

The court stated that a person seeking temporary or preliminary injunctive relief must show that he is likely to suffer harm that cannot later be repaired and either is likely to win the case or presents serious legal questions that deserve litigation while the balance of hardships strongly favors him. The court described this relief as extraordinary and said it should not be granted unless the person seeking it clearly carries the burden of proof.

The court found that Goldstein’s submissions did not show either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships.

Ruling

The court denied Goldstein’s request for an order to show cause. The court stated that it would issue an explanatory order at a later date. The opinion does not resolve the underlying claims in the complaint.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.