DeLoach v. New York City
Thomas B. Deloach v. New York City, acting through the Department of Finance aka (DOF)
- Louis Stanton
- 1:25-cv-07137
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Thomas B. Deloach v. New York City, Judge Stanton denied emergency motions for a temporary restraining order because Deloach showed no likely success or serious merits questions.
Thomas B. Deloach’s emergency motions were denied; the court also directed him to use the Pro Se Intake Unit for future communications instead of calling chambers.
What happened
In Thomas B. Deloach v. New York City, Thomas B. Deloach asked the federal court for emergency orders while challenging the New York City Department of Finance’s denial of his application for a hardship program. The court had previously dismissed the federal case for failure to state a claim but allowed him 30 days to amend it.
Judge Stanton explained that emergency preliminary relief requires a showing of likely irreparable harm and either a likely chance of success or serious questions that justify litigation. The court found that Deloach’s filings did not meet that standard. They showed disagreement with the pace of his related state-court case, but did not allege facts suggesting a violation of due-process rights.
Judge Stanton denied both emergency motions for a temporary restraining order. The court also directed Deloach to stop trying to contact the judge’s chambers and to send future communications through the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit.
The detailed version
- DeLoach v. New York City · No. 1:25-cv-07137
- Louis Stanton
- Nov. 26, 2025
Background
By an order dated October 9, 2025, the court dismissed Thomas B. Deloach’s action for failure to state a claim and gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint. On November 18, 2025, Deloach filed two emergency motions seeking temporary restraining orders. The motions concerned his challenge to the New York City Department of Finance’s denial of his application to participate in a hardship program. Deloach also had a related case in New York Supreme Court, New York County, and complained about the speed of that proceeding.
The opinion notes that Deloach had previously filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, which Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied on September 29, 2025. The case was later reassigned to Judge Louis L. Stanton.
Legal standard
The court explained that preliminary injunctive relief—an emergency order issued before final judgment—requires the moving party to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions that justify litigation, together with a balance of hardships strongly favoring the party seeking relief. The court described this relief as extraordinary and said the moving party bears the burden of making a clear showing.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Deloach’s submissions did not demonstrate a likelihood of success. It relied in part on the earlier dismissal of the federal action for failure to state a claim. The court also found that Deloach did not allege facts suggesting that the defendants had violated his due-process rights. His filings showed that he wanted his ongoing state-court matter resolved on an emergency basis, but they did not show that the merits of his claims warranted expedited resolution in federal court.
Disposition
Judge Stanton denied the emergency motions identified as ECF 14 and ECF 15. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions. The court stated that it would issue an explanatory order later. The court also directed Deloach to stop making further attempts to call the judge’s chambers and instructed him to direct future communications to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.