McDerman v. Does
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-05740
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Michael McDerman v. John Does, Judge Ho denied TRO and hearing requests because defendants remained unidentified and other TRO requirements were unmet.
Michael McDerman and the unidentified John Doe defendants named in the case.
What happened
In Michael McDerman v. John Does, Michael McDerman, who is representing himself, asked for temporary restraining orders and expedited in-person hearings. He alleged retaliation, cybersecurity breaches, and continuing harassment by unknown defendants or people acting for them.
The court denied both motions. It said it could not issue a temporary restraining order against unidentified defendants and that, even if the defendants were identified, McDerman had not shown the required likelihood of success or other serious merits questions, or that an order would serve the public interest. The court also said further requests with the same problems would be summarily dismissed, while allowing a new request if McDerman identifies a John Doe defendant.
Judge Dale E. Ho denied the temporary-restraining-order and hearing requests and directed the clerk to terminate the two docket entries for those motions.
The detailed version
- McDerman v. Does · No. 1:25-cv-05740
- Ho
- Oct. 23, 2025
Background
Michael McDerman, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an August 12, 2025 letter motion seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and an expedited in-person hearing. He alleged retaliation, cybersecurity breaches, and ongoing harassment by unknown defendants and “third-party proxies.” This was his second TRO request in the case; the court had denied his first request and identified deficiencies, including that he had not met the legal standard for a TRO and had not identified a defendant whom the court could restrain.
On September 25, 2025, McDerman filed another motion seeking a TRO, an expedited in-person hearing, and what he called a second order to show cause. The court construed the filing as a third TRO request because filings by people without lawyers must be read liberally.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that it could not issue a TRO because McDerman still had not identified any defendant whom the court could restrain. The court further held that, even assuming without deciding that McDerman had shown irreparable harm, he had not satisfied the other required TRO factors: either a likelihood of success on the merits or serious merits questions combined with a balance of hardships strongly favoring him, and that the requested order would serve the public interest.
The court also found that McDerman’s motions did not show how an in-person hearing would resolve these deficiencies. The September motion had the same deficiencies as the August motion.
Disposition
The court denied the August 12 motion for a TRO and an in-person hearing. It denied the September 25 motion for a TRO, an in-person hearing, and the second order to show cause. The court stated that McDerman may refile the TRO request if he identifies a John Doe defendant, but warned that further TRO motions that do not address the identified deficiencies will be summarily dismissed. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 36 and 43.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.