Preacely v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Background

On November 23, 2022, Woodrow Preacely filed a request for a pre-motion conference concerning an anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction. He alleged that his neighbors, the police, the New York City Housing Authority, and the Department of Justice were continuously surveilling, stalking, and harassing him. He submitted exhibits that he said supported those allegations. He sought an order stopping what he described as “24-7 machinations” against him, which he said interfered with his response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. His filing also requested additional time to respond to that motion, and the court granted the extension.

The defendant opposed the request and argued that the court should treat the filing as the preliminary-injunction motion and deny it. The court rejected that approach. It explained that treating a pre-motion letter as the motion itself is disfavored, that a preliminary injunction is considered dispositive for purposes of the applicable court rules, and that Preacely’s short letter did not present legal arguments addressing the issues relevant to such a motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court nevertheless found that no pre-motion conference was necessary. A preliminary injunction is a court order requiring or prohibiting conduct while a case proceeds. Under the rule cited by the court, a court cannot grant such an injunction against people or entities that are not parties to the case. The conduct described by Preacely concerned his neighbors, the police, the New York City Housing Authority, and the Department of Justice, and the order states that none of them were parties. The court therefore concluded that the anticipated motion would be futile and that a conference was not warranted.

The court did not decide the merits of a preliminary-injunction motion because no such motion was before it. It stated that Preacely could still file one by January 6, 2023. If he did so, the defendant’s opposition would be due February 3, 2023, and his reply would be due February 17, 2023. The court stated that filing that motion would not affect the briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Preacely’s request for a pre-motion conference. The order also stated that, when considering the motion to dismiss, the court would review the complaint closely, read it liberally, interpret it to raise its strongest suggested arguments, and accept its allegations as true for purposes of arguments under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Preacely.