Baker v. El Ghanayan
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-09026
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Baker v. El Ghanayan, Judge Broderick denied Baker’s request to stop an eviction because the complaint did not show federal court jurisdiction.
Ralph Baker, who represented himself, and Frederick Elghanayan. The ruling denied Baker’s requested temporary relief concerning the eviction from a storage unit in Queens.
What happened
In Baker v. El Ghanayan, Ralph Baker, representing himself, asked the court to temporarily stop an eviction from a storage unit in Queens. He made the request through an order to show cause seeking preliminary injunctive relief.
The court explained that this type of emergency relief requires a showing of likely irreparable harm and either a likely win on the merits or serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. The complaint did not identify a basis for federal jurisdiction, and the alleged facts did not suggest federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick therefore denied Baker’s request for an order to show cause. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Baker v. El Ghanayan · No. 1:20-cv-09026
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 29, 2020
Background
Ralph Baker, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action against Frederick Elghanayan by order to show cause. Baker sought preliminary injunctive relief—temporary court-ordered relief while a case is pending—to stay an eviction from a storage unit in Queens.
Legal standard
The court stated that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation together with a balance of hardships that strongly favors the requesting party. The court described preliminary injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted without a clear showing meeting that burden.
Jurisdictional reasoning
The court stated that Baker’s complaint did not specify the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the dispute. The alleged facts also did not suggest jurisdiction based on a federal question or diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. For that reason, the court stated that it had to deny the request for injunctive relief.
Disposition
The court denied Baker’s request for an order to show cause, identified as ECF No. 2. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Baker a copy of the order and note service on the docket. 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 and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion stated that the court would issue a more detailed order later.
Other information in the order
The court provided filing and electronic-service information for people representing themselves during the public-health crisis and mentioned a legal clinic that might assist Baker. Those directions were not part of the court’s ruling on the requested injunction.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.