Brennen v. Griffin
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03464
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Brennen v. Griffin, Judge Swain denied the plaintiffs’ emergency eviction-stay request without prejudice because they did not show jurisdiction or likely success.
Mark and Christina Brennan’s request to stop an eviction by Desmarie Griffin was denied without prejudice; the merits of their complaint were left for a later order.
What happened
In Brennen v. Griffin, Mark and Christina Brennan, representing themselves, asked the court to stop an eviction by their landlord, Desmarie Griffin. Their filings described Mark’s accidental shooting, both plaintiffs’ arrests, and Christina’s dismissed and sealed charges.
The court said the filings did not show that it had authority to hear the claims and did not provide enough facts to evaluate the claims against Griffin, a private landlord. The plaintiffs therefore did not meet the requirements for emergency injunctive relief.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the request for an order to show cause without prejudice and said she would address the complaint’s merits in a later order. She also denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal without paying fees after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Brennen v. Griffin · No. 1:25-cv-03464
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 30, 2025
Background
Mark Brennan and Christina Brennan, proceeding without lawyers, sued Desmarie Griffin. They filed a complaint, an unsigned request for an order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, and two letters seeking emergency injunctive relief. They sought to stop an eviction.
The submissions stated that the plaintiffs resided at 901 Courtyard Plaza in Peekskill, New York. Mark alleged that he accidentally shot himself in the leg with a gun and that Christina did not know the gun existed before the shooting. After Christina took Mark to the hospital, police arrested both plaintiffs for illegally possessing a weapon. The charges against Christina were dismissed and sealed. Mark was released on bail, but the filings did not make clear what happened to the charges against him.
The plaintiffs alleged that Griffin, their landlord, then moved to evict them. They said Griffin initially offered to let Christina remain if Mark stayed away, but apparently withdrew that offer. They sought to stay the eviction, stating that Christina was elderly, sick, and taking many medications.
The court’s analysis
To obtain emergency injunctive relief, the plaintiffs had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or serious legal questions that justified litigation, together with a hardship balance strongly favoring them. The court described this relief as extraordinary and said the party requesting it bears the burden of making a clear showing.
The court found that the plaintiffs’ submissions did not allege facts showing that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the claims. The filings also lacked enough facts for the court to evaluate the merits of the claims against Griffin, whom the opinion identified as a private landlord. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown either a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions supporting emergency relief.
Ruling
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for an order to show cause without prejudice. The court stated that it would issue an explanatory order later and would address the complaint’s merits in a subsequent order. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and it denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The opinion does not decide the merits of the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.