Lopez v. U.S. Department of the Interior

Background

Mariah Lopez, who was representing herself, sued the U.S. Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, the Hudson River Park Trust, the New York State Executive Chamber, and the New York State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. She challenged an ongoing construction project involving a beach and soccer fields in Hudson River Park in Manhattan. Her complaint asserted claims under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments; the National Historic Preservation Act; Title VII; the Americans with Disabilities Act; Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act; and various New York laws.

Lopez alleged that the project would harm the historical significance of the area to transgender, gender-nonconforming, Black, Latino, gay, and lesbian communities. She sought an order stopping construction and also requested money damages. The opinion states that Lopez had already filed a related challenge to the same project in New York state court. That court had issued a temporary restraining order but later vacated it to the extent that site-preparation work could proceed. Lopez said the state case remained pending.

Federal court’s consideration of abstention

The court considered whether to refrain from exercising jurisdiction under the Colorado River doctrine, which can allow a federal court to step aside when a parallel state proceeding makes doing so appropriate for orderly case management. The court examined factors including the risk of duplicative litigation, which case was filed first, how far each case had progressed, whether federal law controlled, and whether the state court could protect Lopez’s federal rights.

The court said it was inclined to abstain because the state case was filed first and had progressed further, the state court had arguably assumed jurisdiction over property involved in the dispute, staying or dismissing the federal action could avoid piecemeal litigation, and state procedures appeared adequate to protect Lopez’s federal rights. The court did not make a final abstention ruling. Instead, it ordered Lopez to file a declaration within 30 days explaining why the federal court should not abstain and why she brought the federal action while litigating the matter in state court.

Preliminary-injunction motion

Lopez sought immediate injunctive relief, which the court treated as a motion for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary order issued before final judgment. To obtain one, a party generally must show irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions warranting litigation together with a strongly favorable balance of hardships.

The court held that Lopez had not made that showing. It noted that she had already obtained relief from the state court that appeared to have been only partly vacated, and it found that she had not shown either a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions about the merits combined with the required balance of hardships. The court therefore denied the motion for preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed Lopez to show cause within 30 days why the court should not abstain from exercising jurisdiction. The order did not finally dismiss the case or decide the merits of Lopez’s claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The court had previously granted Lopez permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees in the district court.