Waheed v. New York Loan Company

Background

Sehra Waheed, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, originally asserted claims under a federal civil-rights statute, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and state law. She alleged that she entered into collateral-based loans with the defendants and that they auctioned property—including diamond and gold jewelry and designer handbags—without certified notice. She also alleged that the defendants continued billing her on expired contracts and used misleading contracts concerning the property.

Waheed later amended her complaint on her own initiative. The amended complaint asserted claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law commonly called RICO, and again asserted state-law claims. It did not reassert the earlier civil-rights or Securities Exchange Act claims.

Motions for summonses, default judgments, and electronic filing

Waheed filed several motions and other documents seeking summonses, default judgments, electronic case-filing privileges, and emergency injunctive relief. Because she was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That screening requires dismissal if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief.

The court held that, while this screening was required, Waheed was not entitled at that stage to summonses, default judgments, or permission to use electronic filing. It denied those applications without prejudice to renewal at the appropriate time.

Emergency injunctive relief

Waheed sought an order stopping the defendants from engaging in the conduct underlying her claims. A preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is emergency relief that requires a showing of likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships.

The court reviewed the amended complaint and Waheed's submissions but found that they did not establish either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions together with the required balance of hardships. It therefore denied the request for emergency injunctive relief without prejudice. The court stated that it would issue a further explanatory order later.

Disposition

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied all pending motions and directed the clerk to terminate them. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Waheed fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. This order did not decide whether the defendants violated RICO or state law.