In re: Drew Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 1:24-CV-9776 (LTS) IN RE: DREW SMITH.

ORDER LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner Drew Smith, who proceeds pro se, has filed, among other submissions, an “emergency petition for declaratory judgment and writ of prohibition” and a “motion for expedited relief” (ECF 1 & 3), seeking what appears to be, among other relief, immediate preliminary injunctive relief in relation to his claims that seek disqualification of President-elect Donald J. Trump from federal office. To obtain such relief, a litigant must show: (1) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits of his case or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in his favor. See UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. W.V. Univ. Hosps., Inc., 660 F.3d 643, 648 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Wright v. Giuliani, 230 F.3d 543, 547 (2000). Immediate preliminary injunctive relief “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Petitioner’s submissions do not demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in his favor. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s requests for immediate preliminary injunctive relief. The Court will issue an explanatory order at a later date.

CONCLUSION Inasmuch as Petitioner seeks, in his “emergency petition for declaratory judgment and writ of prohibition” and a “motion for expedited relief” (ECF 1 & 3), immediate preliminary injunctive relief, the Court denies that relief. The Court will issue an explanatory order at a later date, and will also address Plaintiff’s other claims for relief in that order.

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).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2024 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge