ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: See ee Poe DATE FILED:__ 10/30/2025 JANE DOE, Plaintiff, -against- 1:25-CV-06020 (MMG) CHRISTIAN LARSEN, = Defendants.

MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: This is a section 1983 action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are using judicial proceedings to retaliate against her for cooperating with federal authorities. See Dkt. No. 1. On October 21, 2025, Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (the “Motion”, seeking an order enjoining a pending California state court proceeding concerning whether Plaintiff is a “vexatious litigant.” Dkt. No. 17. A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary” remedy. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,

(2008). To receive this remedy, Plaintiff must show, among other things, that she is likely to succeed on the merits, that she will suffer irreparable harm absent the court’s intervention (and, by extension, that the remedy is capable of forestalling the identified harm), and that the entry of the injunction is in the public interest. See Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney,

, 345—46 (2024). Plaintiff has utterly failed to show how anything that happens in the California action (including the potential requirement of a bond to continue that action) would affect her ability to pursue her claims 1n this action in this Court. Plaintiff has likewise failed to demonstrate any basis for this Court to exercise any authority over the proceedings of a state court in California. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. No. 17.

Dated: October 30, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge