Moore v. McMaster
- Louis Stanton
- 1:25-cv-00591
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Moore v. McMaster, Judge Swain denied preliminary-relief requests and barred future such motions from being addressed.
Karen Tracey Moore’s requests for preliminary injunctive relief were denied, and the specified pending motions were terminated. The order did not decide the underlying claims in her complaint.
What happened
In Moore v. McMaster, Karen Tracey Moore, representing herself, filed several motions seeking court orders before her underlying claims were addressed. The motions included requests for declaratory relief, a preliminary injunction, a jury trial and teleconference, and a temporary restraining order.
The court denied Moore’s requests for preliminary relief because her filings did not show that she was likely to succeed or that serious legal questions and the balance of hardships favored her. The court said her submissions did not suggest that she had a viable claim or was entitled to this extraordinary relief.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the clerk to terminate the motions listed as ECF Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11, and said the court would not address any additional motions for preliminary relief. The court also denied fee-free appeal status, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Moore v. McMaster · No. 1:25-cv-00591
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 4, 2025
Background
Karen Tracey Moore brought the action representing herself and asked to proceed without prepaying filing fees. After filing the complaint, she submitted several motions, including two motions for declaratory relief, a motion for a preliminary injunction, a motion for a jury trial and trial by teleconference, and a motion for a temporary restraining order. The court noted that many of these motions requested preliminary injunctive relief. The court did not address Moore’s separate requests for pro bono counsel or permission to participate in electronic filing.
Standard for Preliminary Relief
The court explained that preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy. To obtain it, Moore had to show that she was likely to suffer irreparable harm and either was likely to succeed on the merits or presented serious legal questions making the case suitable for litigation, with the balance of hardships strongly favoring her.
Ruling
The court determined that Moore’s submissions did not show a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions combined with a favorable balance of hardships. The court referred to allegations that Moore and her siblings had been implanted with devices and sought a declaration against Donald Trump based on an alleged conspiracy involving his wife, Melania Trump. The court stated that the submissions did not suggest Moore had a viable claim or was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.
The court denied Moore’s requests for preliminary injunctive relief. It directed the clerk to terminate the motions pending under ECF Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11. It also stated that it would not address any additional motions for preliminary relief that Moore filed and that the clerk would be directed to terminate them.
Finally, the court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Moore permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide the claims in the complaint; it stated that those claims would be addressed later.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.