Filed: Dec. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 03, 2019
Summary: ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN , District Judge . Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed several letters requesting that the Court issue an Order to Show Cause why preliminary injunctive relief should not be granted. See ECF Nos. 35-37. The Court declines to do so in the absence of any showing that Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm and that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. See UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. W.V. Univ. Hosps., Inc., 660 F.3d 643 , 648 (2d Cir. 2011).
Summary: ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN , District Judge . Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed several letters requesting that the Court issue an Order to Show Cause why preliminary injunctive relief should not be granted. See ECF Nos. 35-37. The Court declines to do so in the absence of any showing that Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm and that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. See UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. W.V. Univ. Hosps., Inc., 660 F.3d 643 , 648 (2d Cir. 2011). I..
More
ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed several letters requesting that the Court issue an Order to Show Cause why preliminary injunctive relief should not be granted. See ECF Nos. 35-37. The Court declines to do so in the absence of any showing that Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm and that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. See UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. W.V. Univ. Hosps., Inc., 660 F.3d 643, 648 (2d Cir. 2011). If Plaintiff believes that he is entitled to relief, he may file an appropriate motion seeking such relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for an order to show cause is denied, as is his request for a telephone conference.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
In his letters, Plaintiff also expressed concern that he did not receive any proposed briefing schedule other than that submitted by the South Carolina Secretary of State at ECF No. 23. As stated in the Court's Order at ECF No. 27, the proposed schedule at ECF No. 23 was the only proposal received by the Court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
