Micha-El Bey v. Urban Financial Group, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01995
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Micha-El Bey v. Urban Financial Group, Judge Swain denied Micha-El Bey’s requests for immediate emergency relief.
Lindon David Micha-El Bey’s requests for immediate injunctive relief were denied; the order also denied payment-free appeal status for an appeal from this order.
What happened
In Micha-El Bey v. Urban Financial Group, Lindon David Micha-El Bey, representing himself, asked the court for immediate relief, including an order that appears intended to prevent his eviction. His filings did not identify the specific relief sought.
The court said this extraordinary relief required showing likely irreparable harm and either a likely win on the case’s underlying claims or serious legal questions combined with hardships strongly favoring him. The court found that his filings did not make either required showing and denied the requests raised in his proposed order, affidavit, and motion.
The court directed the clerk to terminate one filing, said it would issue a further explanatory order later, and denied payment-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
The detailed version
- Micha-El Bey v. Urban Financial Group, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01995
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 28, 2025
Background
Lindon David Micha-El Bey, who was representing himself, filed a proposed order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, along with a motion seeking both forms of immediate relief. A preliminary injunction is a court order issued before the case ends; a temporary restraining order is a short-term form of emergency relief. He also submitted an unauthenticated affidavit.
The filings did not specify the particular immediate injunction he wanted. His materials included a February 19, 2025, eviction notice from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, stating that the earliest eviction date was March 6, 2025. His affidavit also requested several forms of immediate relief, including relief that appeared intended to prevent his eviction.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a person seeking this type of immediate relief must show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions to justify litigation combined with a balance of hardships that strongly favors the person seeking relief. The court described preliminary injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing.
The court concluded that none of Micha-El Bey’s submissions—including his order to show cause, affidavit, motion, and complaint—showed either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions with the required balance of hardships.
Ruling
The court denied Micha-El Bey’s requests for immediate injunctive relief raised in the order to show cause, affidavit, and motion. It directed the clerk to terminate ECF 3 and stated that it would issue an explanatory order at a later date.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied payment-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Micha-El Bey and provide him a copy upon request if he appeared at the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.