Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants Steven Andrew Zanazzi's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and directs the United States Marshal Service to serve the defendants. The court denies his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, finding insufficient support for his Fourth Amendment, procedural due process, and equal protection claims, as well as insufficient evidence of irreparable harm. The court directs him to file an amended complaint by February 19, 2026 and notes potential complications arising from his Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Whether plaintiff satisfied the requirements for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
- Whether plaintiff's complaint pleaded sufficient factual support for his Fourth Amendment, procedural-due-process, and equal-protection claims.
- Whether plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint pleading the factual bases for each claim and each defendant's specific conduct.
Holdings
- Plaintiff's reported financial position qualified him to commence the action without prepayment of the filing fee, so the IFP motion was granted.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to a TRO or preliminary injunction because the motion did not satisfy the requirements of irreparable harm, likelihood of success or sufficiently serious merits questions with a favorable balance of hardships, and public interest.
- The complaint and supporting submissions did not presently plead sufficient facts to support the asserted Fourth Amendment, procedural-due-process, and equal-protection claims, and plaintiff was required to plead those claims with greater particularity in an amended complaint.
- The court did not resolve plaintiff's ability to proceed in the district court but held that the issue was unclear on the present record and required consideration of plaintiff's disclosure obligations and the possible ownership of the claims by the bankruptcy estate.
Key quotations
“When a party seeks “mandatory” rather than “prohibitory” preliminary relief, “the likelihood-of-success and irreparable-harm requirements become more demanding still, requiring that the plaintiff show a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits and make a strong showing of irreparable harm.””
“Accordingly, the TRO Motion (ECF No. 3) is denied and Plaintiff must file an Amended Complaint by February 19, 2026, pleading with greater particularity the factual bases for each of his claims.”
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that defendants took enforcement actions between March 25 and March 29, 2025, violating his Fourth Amendment rights and his Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural due process and equal protection. He alleged that the actions occurred without advance notice, a hearing, or a court-ordered eviction. Materials submitted with the TRO motion included a Town of Babylon notice directing plaintiff to appear for an administrative adjudication regarding unlawful occupancy and a ninety-day notice to vacate dated January 31, 2025. Plaintiff also stated that he had commenced a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding, but did not indicate whether he had disclosed this district-court action to the bankruptcy court.
Procedural history
Plaintiff commenced this civil-rights action against the Town of Babylon and other defendants and moved for in forma pauperis status and emergency injunctive relief. The district court granted the IFP motion and directed the United States Marshal Service to serve defendants, but denied the TRO and preliminary-injunction motion because plaintiff had not satisfied the applicable requirements and had not adequately pleaded his claims. The court ordered an amended complaint by February 19, 2026.