# Brown v. United Nations

> District Court, S.D. New York · September 19, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10662589

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** September 19, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10662589

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SHARON L. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
-against- 24-CV-7061 (LTS)
UNITED NATIONS; WORLD HEATH ORDER
ORGANIZATION; UNRWA; PLANNED
PARENTHOOD,
Defendants.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a notice of motion requesting preliminary
injunctive relief. She requests that the Court “stop abortion in NYC, NYS and America all 50
states, right to life already exists and murder, decapitation mutilation is already a crime.” (ECF 4,
at 1.) Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
DISCUSSION
To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show: (1) that she is likely to suffer
irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits of her 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 her 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). 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).
Plaintiff’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 her favor. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an order
to show cause (ECF No. 4) is denied. The Court will issue an explanatory order at a later date.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 4) is denied.
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: September 18, 2024
New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10662589. Public record. Not legal advice.