Opinion
20 Civ. 11136 (LGS)
06-16-2022
MYRA S. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.
ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, DISTRICT JUDGE
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2022, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant from “interfering with, altering, or discontinuing in anyway [her] normal and usual working/labor arrangement” and “terminating her employment” during the pendency of this action. (Dkt. No. 29.)
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, Defendant filed a response opposing the preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 33.)
WHEREAS, “[a] party seeking a preliminary injunction must show (1) irreparable harm;
(2) either a likelihood of success on the merits or both serious questions on the merits and a balance of hardships decidedly favoring the moving party; and (3) that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.” N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed'n, Inc., 883 F.3d 32, 37 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing New York ex rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638, 650 (2d Cir. 2015)). It is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. The preliminary injunction motion fails to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. See New York v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 969 F.3d 42, 86 (2d Cir. 2020). Although Plaintiff argues that she may be terminated or demoted absent the injunction, this is insufficient because any harm caused by such actions could be remedied by monetary damages. See New York ex rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638, 660 (2d Cir. 2015) (“Irreparable harm is injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent and that cannot be remedied by an award of monetary damages.”). It is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this Order on pro se Plaintiffs and to close the motion at Dkt. No. 29.