Hamilton v. Steven J. Baum P.C.
- Louis Stanton
- 1:19-cv-09118
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hamilton v. Steven J. Baum P.C., Judge McMahon denied two requests to pause foreclosure and eviction proceedings because Hamilton had not shown the required grounds.
Patricia A. Hamilton's requests to temporarily stop foreclosure and eviction efforts were denied; the defendants were not ordered to stop those efforts.
What happened
In Hamilton v. Steven J. Baum P.C., Patricia A. Hamilton, representing herself, asked the court to temporarily stop foreclosure and eviction efforts while her case continued. The court had previously dismissed claims seeking review of a New York State foreclosure judgment but allowed her to file an amended complaint.
Hamilton filed two nearly identical requests for immediate emergency relief. The court found that she had not shown a likely chance of success, serious questions suitable for litigation, or a balance of hardships strongly favoring her. The court relied on its earlier ruling that federal law barred review of the state foreclosure judgment and that her original complaint did not provide enough facts to state a claim.
The court denied both requests and said it would not consider future requests for the same relief until Hamilton filed an amended complaint. Judge Colleen McMahon also denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Hamilton v. Steven J. Baum P.C. · No. 1:19-cv-09118
- Louis Stanton
- Nov. 15, 2019
Background
Patricia A. Hamilton, who represented herself and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and immediate injunctive relief. She asked the court to order the banks' attorneys, realtors, and property management companies to stop foreclosure and eviction efforts until the federal court resolved her case. She later filed a second motion seeking the same relief.
The court had previously dismissed Hamilton's claims asking the federal court to review and overturn a New York State court's final foreclosure and sale judgment under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents a federal district court from acting as an appeals court over a state-court judgment. The court had allowed Hamilton to file an amended complaint alleging enough facts to meet Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but she had not yet done so.
Legal standard
To obtain a temporary restraining order or other preliminary injunctive relief, Hamilton had to show irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions for litigation combined with a balance of hardships that strongly favored her. The court described this relief as extraordinary and requiring a clear showing by the person seeking it.
Court's ruling
The court denied both of Hamilton's motions. It concluded that the motions did not show a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions with the required balance of hardships. The court relied on its earlier conclusions that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevented some of the requested permanent relief and that Hamilton's original complaint did not allege enough facts to state a claim under Rule 8.
The court directed the clerk to mail Hamilton a copy of the order and record service on the docket. It warned that it would not consider future motions seeking the same relief until Hamilton filed an amended complaint complying with the earlier order. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that purpose. The order was docketed as a written opinion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.