Avila v. ACACIA Network
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-10260
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Avila v. ACACIA Network, Judge Swain denied without prejudice Jimmy Avila’s request for preliminary relief and denied fee status for an appeal.
Jimmy Avila’s request for temporary preliminary relief was denied without prejudice; the court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The underlying claims remained for later consideration.
What happened
In Avila v. ACACIA Network, Jimmy Avila, representing himself, asked the court for immediate preliminary relief through an order requiring the defendants to respond. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
The court said Avila’s filings did not show either a likelihood that he would succeed on his claims or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with hardships strongly favoring him. It therefore denied his request without prejudice, meaning the request could potentially be made again. The court said it would address the complaint’s claims later.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the request for an order to show cause without prejudice. She also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal-related fees.
The detailed version
- Avila v. ACACIA Network · No. 1:23-cv-10260
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 12, 2024
Background
Jimmy Avila, who was representing himself, brought the action against ACACIA Network, Aja Douglas, 1212 Grant Realty, LLC, Manny Stein, and Caren Abate, identified in the caption as the Office of Mental Health Director of the New York City Field Office. Avila submitted an order to show cause seeking preliminary injunctive relief—temporary court-ordered relief while the case proceeds. The opinion does not provide details about the underlying claims.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that a party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must show a likelihood of irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions that warrant litigation, together with a balance of hardships that strongly favors the requesting party. The court characterized preliminary relief as an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing by the requesting party.
The court concluded that Avila’s submissions did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions, together with the required balance of hardships. The opinion does not state that the court decided the underlying claims.
Ruling
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Avila’s request for an order to show cause, identified as ECF No. 3, without prejudice. The court stated that it would later issue an order addressing the claims in the complaint. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.