Mott v. Lane
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-02771
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mott v. Lane, Judge Swain denied Mott’s emergency requests because he did not show likely success or sufficiently serious questions about the merits.
Ricky Mott, who filed the request, and ABC Mining, named as a plaintiff, did not receive the requested emergency relief; the requested restraints against the listed defendants were not issued.
What happened
In Mott v. Lane, Ricky Mott, who was representing himself, asked the court for emergency restraining orders, a declaration that the defendants had acted unlawfully, an injunction, and immediate summonses and a complaint.
The court said this extraordinary relief required showing likely irreparable harm and either likely success or serious legal questions combined with hardships strongly favoring Mott. The court found that his filings did not meet the required showing.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the emergency request and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. She also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Mott v. Lane · No. 1:25-cv-02771
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 15, 2025
Background
Ricky Mott, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an “emergency judicial notice.” He sought restraining orders against the defendants, a declaratory judgment stating that the defendants’ actions violated the plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, an injunction stopping alleged discriminatory practices and protecting the plaintiffs’ rights, and emergency issuance of the summons and complaint.
Legal standard
The court explained that preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy. To obtain it, Mott had to show a likelihood of irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions warranting litigation together with a balance of hardships strongly favoring him.
Ruling
The court found that Mott’s submissions did not show a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions combined with a favorable balance of hardships. It therefore denied Mott’s request for an “emergency judicial notice,” including the requested restraining orders, declaratory judgment, injunction, and emergency issuance of summonses. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion. The court stated that it would issue an explanatory order later.
Appeal-fee ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying court fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.