Hayes v. Condlin
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-07295
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hayes v. Condlin, Judge Karas denied Hayes’s request for a preliminary injunction, allowing renewal later, because he had not shown likely harm or success.
Earl Hayes and defendants Brady Condlin and Steven Schmoke.
What happened
In Hayes v. Condlin, Earl Hayes, who was representing himself, asked the court for an order temporarily stopping enforcement of New York’s cigarette tax law. The opinion says Hayes claimed that enforcing the law was unconstitutional.
The court said Hayes had to show that he was likely to suffer harm that money could not repair and either was likely to win or had serious legal questions supporting his case. The court found that the alleged harm was not ongoing, Hayes had not shown the law was likely to be enforced against him again, and he had requested money as a remedy. The court also found that Hayes had not shown a sufficient chance of success on the constitutional issue.
Judge Karas denied the request for a preliminary injunction without prejudice to renewal later. The court said it would address the underlying complaint in due course and denied Hayes permission to appeal without paying filing fees because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Hayes v. Condlin · No. 7:22-cv-07295
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 19, 2022
Background
Earl Hayes, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for preliminary injunctive relief. The court interpreted his submission as seeking to stop enforcement of New York’s cigarette tax law on the ground that enforcement was unconstitutional.
Legal standard
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary temporary court order. The requesting party must show a likelihood of irreparable harm—harm that cannot adequately be repaired with money—and either a likelihood of success on the merits or serious legal questions supported by a balance of hardships that strongly favors the requesting party. The court emphasized that the requesting party bears the burden of making a clear showing.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Hayes had not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm. The alleged harm—enforcement of the cigarette tax law—was not ongoing, and Hayes had not alleged facts establishing that the law was likely to be enforced against him again. The court also found that Hayes had not shown that money would be inadequate compensation, noting that he expressly requested a financial remedy.
The court further found that Hayes had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the constitutionality of enforcing the state cigarette tax law, or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships.
Disposition
The court denied Hayes’s request for preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice to renewal at a later time. It stated that it would address the merits of the complaint later. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.