Lopez v. New York City Police Dept.
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-05360
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lopez v. New York City Police Dept., Judge Swain denied Mariah Lopez’s requests for immediate preliminary injunctive relief.
Mariah Lopez’s requests for immediate preliminary injunctive relief were denied, and she was denied permission to appeal without paying the filing costs. The opinion does not identify any additional practical effect on the New York City Police Department or the other defendants.
What happened
Mariah Lopez v. New York City Police Department concerns Mariah Lopez’s requests for immediate court action to temporarily restrict or require conduct by the defendants. She represented herself.
The court explained that this type of emergency relief requires showing likely irreparable harm and either a likely win on the claims or serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. The court said Lopez’s submissions did not make the required showing about the merits.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Lopez’s requests for immediate preliminary injunctive relief. The court also denied her permission to appeal without paying the filing costs, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and said it would issue a fuller explanation later.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. New York City Police Dept. · No. 1:25-cv-05360
- Laura Swain
- June 27, 2025
Background
Mariah Lopez, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed submissions asking for immediate preliminary injunctive relief. The court described the requested relief as appearing to include a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction. The submissions were identified as ECF 1, 6, and 7. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the defendants’ positions.
Legal standard
The court explained that preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy. A person seeking it must show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions to make the dispute a fair ground for litigation, together with a balance of hardships that strongly favors the person seeking relief.
Ruling
The court said Lopez’s submissions did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. It therefore denied Lopez’s requests for immediate preliminary injunctive relief. The court stated that it would issue an explanatory order later.
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. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing costs. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.