Rodriguez v. Sky, 605 W 42st. Owner LLC
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-08034
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rodriguez v. Sky, Judge Swain denied Rodriguez’s request for emergency relief over a damaged door and eviction proceedings.
Benjamin Rodriguez’s requests for emergency repairs to an allegedly damaged door and for federal-court intervention in his eviction proceedings were denied. The order also denied him permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. Sky, 605 W 42st. Owner LLC, Benjamin Rodriguez asked for emergency court action concerning a damaged door and eviction proceedings. He said New York City police officers damaged the door and asked that it be repaired, and he appeared to seek intervention in his eviction case.
The court said emergency injunctive relief requires a likely risk of serious harm and either a likely chance of success or serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. The court found that Rodriguez had not shown those requirements. It also said the allegations about the eviction proceedings did not suggest that the federal court had authority to decide claims involving the eviction.
The court denied Rodriguez’s request for an order to show cause. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Sky, 605 W 42st. Owner LLC · No. 1:23-cv-08034
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 12, 2023
Background
Benjamin Rodriguez, representing himself, filed a complaint and submissions seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief. He asked for a door—allegedly damaged by officers from the New York City Police Department—to be repaired. He also appeared to seek relief concerning eviction proceedings, stating that an eviction case had a court date on November 1, 2023 and referring to another human-rights case.
Legal standard
The court explained that preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy. To obtain it, Rodriguez had to show that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm and either was likely to succeed on the merits or had serious legal questions suitable for litigation, with the balance of hardships strongly favoring him.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Rodriguez’s request for repairs did not present sufficiently serious questions on the merits to justify preliminary relief. As to the requested intervention in the eviction proceedings, the court said the alleged facts did not suggest that it had subject-matter jurisdiction—that is, legal authority over—claims relating to Rodriguez’s eviction. The court therefore found that the submissions did not show a likelihood of success on any such claim.
Disposition
The court denied Rodriguez’s request for an order to show cause. It 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 does not state that the underlying claims were dismissed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.