Rhodes v. Willis et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ASSATA RHODES,
Plaintiff,
-against-
EBONY SHAWNTAY WILLIS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
25-cv-01727-LDH-JAM
LASHANN DEARCY HALL, United States District Judge:
Assata Rhodes (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and
preliminary injunction against Ebony Shawntay Willis, Walter J. Mikowski, Joseph Hickey,
Adrian J. Arav, Gabriella Teresa Castellano, Michael C. Blanda, Jeffrey Clarke. Kasey M.
Lazaro, Nicholas M. Loweth, Stephanie F. Malvica, Ali Walker, Mikhail Goncharov, Jessica
Tisch, Bradford Scott Lander, Eric Leroy Adams, and the City of New York (together,
“Defendants”), seeking the return of all property seized by New York City Police Department
(“NYPD”) from Plaintiff's care, custody and control on April 10, 2024, November 23, 2024, and
December 19, 2024. (Pl.’s Mot. TRO and Prelim. Inj. (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff
alleges that, across three occasions, Defendant-officers employed by NYPD seized two license
plates, two rifles, one shot gun, and multiple cartridges and magazines of ammunition from
Plaintiff's custody without a search warrant. (Id. at 3-4, 22-29.)
DISCUSSION
“It is well established that . . . the standard for an entry of a TRO is the same as [that] for
a preliminary injunction. Al Saidi v. U.S. Embassy in Djibouti, 544 F.Supp.3d 289, 295
Case 1:25-cv-01727-LDH-JAM Document 76 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
(E.D.N.Y. 2021) (citation omitted). Specifically, the law requires a movant to demonstrate that
they will “suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, and either (1) that [they are] likely to
succeed on the merits of the action, or (2) that there are sufficiently serious questions going to
the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation, provided that the balance of hardships tips
decidedly in favor of the moving party.” Mullins v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 47, 52-53 (2d
Cir. 2010).1 That said, irreparable harm is “the single most important prerequisite for the
issuance of a preliminary injunction.” JTH Tax, LLC v. Agnant, 62 F.4th 658, 672 (2d Cir. 2023)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To establish irreparable harm, a movant must
show that she “will suffer an injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and
imminent, and one that cannot be remedied if a court waits until the end of trial to resolve the
harm.” Id. at 673. Plaintiff fails to make such a showing.
Plaintiff asserts that pursuant to local statute, 38 RCNY 12-35, the NYPD Property Clerk
is authorized to destroy or dispose of her property as early as November 2025. (Pl.’s Mot. at 2.)
That might be true, but it does not establish the irreparable harm will result. That is, injunctions
are unavailable when an adequate remedy at law exists. Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of New
York, Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005). Here, Defendant rightfully argues that Plaintiff
may pursue other adequate remedies at law, including an application to seek the return of her
property through replevin or the recovery of damages. (Def.’s Mem. L. Opp’n Pl.’s Mot.
(“Def.’s Opp’n”) at 2, ECF No. 35.) Because adequate remedies at law are available to Plaintiff
to obtain the relief that she seeks in this motion, Plaintiff has failed to show irreparable harm.
1 The Court is permitted to make a finding on Plaintiff's motion for a TRO without a hearing. See Redac Project
6426, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 402 F.2d 789, 790 (2d Cir. 1968) ("[T]here is no hard and fast rule in this [C]ircuit
that oral testimony must be taken on a motion for a preliminary injunction or that the court can in no circumstances
dispose of the motion on the papers before it.").
Case 1:25-cv-01727-LDH-JAM Document 76 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York __/s/LDH_____________________
March 10, 2026 LASHANN DEARCY HALL
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01727-LDH-JAM Document 76 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>