Johnson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-01981
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Johnson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.: Judge Carter denied Johnson’s request for preliminary relief because her foreclosure challenge likely could not proceed under Rooker-Feldman.
Benita Johnson’s request for preliminary injunctive relief was denied; the complaint’s ultimate merits were not decided.
What happened
In Johnson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., Benita Johnson, representing herself, sued Branch Banking & Trust Co. over a foreclosure proceeding in New York state court. She asked the federal court to undo the state-court judgment and sheriff’s sale and to grant other relief concerning ownership of the property.
Johnson also filed an unsigned request for an order requiring the defendant to explain why preliminary relief should not issue. To obtain that relief, she had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likely win or serious legal questions supported by a sharply favorable balance of hardships.
The court denied the request because Johnson’s submissions did not meet that standard. Judge Carter said her request for federal review of the state foreclosure judgment was likely barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents federal district courts from reviewing final state-court judgments. The court said it would address the complaint’s merits later and denied fee-free appeal status for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. · No. 7:23-cv-01981
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 10, 2023
Background
Benita Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning a foreclosure proceeding in the New York State Supreme Court for Orange County. She sued Branch Banking & Trust Co. Johnson also submitted an unsigned order to show cause seeking preliminary injunctive relief. Her requested relief included vacating the state-court judgment and sheriff’s sale and obtaining an order concerning title to the property.
Legal standard
The court explained that preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy. Johnson had to show that she was likely to suffer irreparable harm and either was likely to succeed on the merits or presented sufficiently serious questions for litigation together with a balance of hardships decidedly in her favor.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Johnson’s submissions did not show either a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions combined with the required balance of hardships. The court specifically stated that her claims, which asked the federal court to review and vacate a judgment from a state foreclosure proceeding, were likely barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents federal district courts from reviewing final judgments entered by state courts. The court cited decisions applying the doctrine to claims seeking to invalidate or challenge state-court foreclosure judgments.
Disposition
The court denied Johnson’s request for an order to show cause. It stated that it would fully address the merits of the complaint in due course. 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 Johnson fee-free appeal status for that purpose. The opinion does not decide the complaint’s ultimate merits.
Judge and date
The order was signed by Andrew L. Carter, Jr., United States District Judge, and dated March 10, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.