Pillow et al v.Commissioner of Social Security et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
TRACY ANN PILLOW,
MICHAEL ANTHONY PILLOW,
VELVET DARLEEN TAYLOR,
AUSTIN LEE BRITTON,
MARIAH FRANCES PILLOW,
XAVIAN MICHAEL PILLOW and
MALEAYA AMELIA PILLOW,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 26-4139-TDC
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Self-represented Plaintiffs Tracy Ann Pillow, Michael Anthony Pillow, Velvet Darleen
Taylor, Austin Lee Britton, Mariah Frances Pillow, Xavian Michael Pillow, and Maleaya Amelia
Pillow have filed a Complaint alleging a range of claims against 30 defendants. 	On October 1,
2026, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Writ
of Mandamus. In the Motion, Plaintiffs request an Order that would, among another things: (1)
require Defendant the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) to reinstate various benefits; (2)
enjoin 	Defendants 	Carvana, 	Co. 	(“Carvana”) 	and 	Bridgecrest 	Credit 	Company, 	LLC
(“Bridgecrest”) from selling a vehicle and require the return of that vehicle to Plaintiffs; (3) enjoin
Defendants Andrews Ridge Apartments and Yardi Systems, Inc. from instituting or continuing
with 	eviction 	proceedings 	against 	Plaintiffs; 	(4) 	enjoin 	Defendants 	Pepco 	and 	Verizon
Communications, Inc. from terminating any of Plaintiffs’ communication services; (5) enjoin all
Case 8:26-cv-04139-TDC Document 5 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Defendants from conducting electronic surveillance on Plaintiffs; and (6) require various
Defendants to turn over records in their possession relating to Plaintiffs.
To obtain a TRO or a preliminary injunction, moving parties must establish that (1) they
are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) an injunction is in the
public interest. 	Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see Dewhurst v.
Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011). 	A moving party must satisfy each
requirement as articulated. 	Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 320–21 (4th Cir. 2013). 	Because a
TRO or a preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy,” it “may only be awarded upon a
clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.
The Motion fails for several reasons. First, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood
of success on the merits. Although Plaintiffs allege a range of claims, they have not meaningfully
argued, and have not provided any specific evidence demonstrating, that they are likely to succeed
on those claims. 	For example, Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that the SSA has
unlawfully withheld benefits, and while Plaintiffs generally allege that Defendants have surveilled
them, hacked their electronic devices, and tampered with their stored electronic files, they have
provided no evidence to support these claims. 	Likewise, Plaintiffs claim that Carvana and
Bridgecrest have unlawfully taken their car and that various Defendants have worked in concert
to illegally evict Plaintiffs but have provided no evidence demonstrating that these Defendants
both took these actions and did so without lawful authority.
Second, Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm. 	For example, as to
their claims about Social Security benefits, the alleged harm is financial, which ordinarily can be
remedied by a later judgment. Likewise, as for their claims which seek to force Defendants to turn
Case 8:26-cv-04139-TDC Document 5 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
over electronic records, Plaintiffs have not shown how they will be irreparably harmed in the
absence of such action.
Third, at this early stage, where Plaintiffs are seeking an ex parte injunction against
Defendants who have not yet been served, the public interest weighs against granting an injunction
before Defendants have had an opportunity to respond.
Where Plaintiffs have not established all four required elements, the Motion for a TRO will
be denied.
Finally, to the extent that the request for a writ of mandamus could be construed as
advancing a different basis for preliminary relief, a United States district court may issue such a
writ only as to an officer or employee of the United States or a federal agency, 28 U.S.C. § 1361,
so such relief is unavailable as to Defendants other than the SSA, all of which are private parties.
As to the SSA, for the reasons stated above, in the absence of a showing of likely success on the
merits, the Court will not issue such a writ at this early stage.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order and Writ of Mandamus, ECF No. 3, is DENIED.
Date: 	October 9, 2026 	/s/
THEODORE D. CHUANG
United States District Judge
Case 8:26-cv-04139-TDC Document 5 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 3