Case Name: Kevin WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David CEASAR, in his Personal and Professional Capacity, Abe Peters, also known as Abe Pultman, AP Brooklyn Management, Elvis Morris, also known as Thomas Fletcher, Strategic Management, Charles Alpert, and Independence Savings Bank, Defendants-Appellees, Francis X. Daniele, in his personal and professional capacity, Paul A. Roldan, Deputy Commissioner, Nycdhcr, Joseph B. Lynch, Acting Commissioner, Nycdhcr, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-25
Citations: 88 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: Nos. 03-7404, 03-7413
Parties: Kevin WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David CEASAR, in his Personal and Professional Capacity, Abe Peters, also known as Abe Pultman, AP Brooklyn Management, Elvis Morris, also known as Thomas Fletcher, Strategic Management, Charles Alpert, and Independence Savings Bank, Defendants-Appellees, Francis X. Daniele, in his personal and professional capacity, Paul A. Roldan, Deputy Commissioner, Nycdhcr, Joseph B. Lynch, Acting Commissioner, Nycdhcr, Defendants.
Judges: Present: OAKES, KEARSE and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 458–459

Head Matter:
Kevin WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David CEASAR, in his Personal and Professional Capacity, Abe Peters, also known as Abe Pultman, AP Brooklyn Management, Elvis Morris, also known as Thomas Fletcher, Strategic Management, Charles Alpert, and Independence Savings Bank, Defendants-Appellees, Francis X. Daniele, in his personal and professional capacity, Paul A. Roldan, Deputy Commissioner, Nycdhcr, Joseph B. Lynch, Acting Commissioner, Nycdhcr, Defendants.
Nos. 03-7404, 03-7413.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 25, 2004.
Kevin Watkins, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellant, pro se.
Haydn J. Brill, Brill & Associates, P.C., New York, NY, for Appellees.
Present: OAKES, KEARSE and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff appeals from the District Court's denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction, in which plaintiff sought to enjoin summary eviction proceedings brought by his landlords in the Civil Court of the City of New York. The Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2288, provides that "[a] court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." Because none of the exceptions enumerated by statute apply in this case, the District Court could not grant an injunction. Alternatively, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion on the ground that plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. We therefore AFFIRM the order of the District Court.