OPINION & ORDER
KEVIN McNULTY, District Judge.
Pro se plaintiff C. Tate George brought this this action against defendants East Orange Housing Authority, Mark Damato, East Orange Board of Commissioners (collectively, "East Orange"), and "Diana Johnson of `HUD' Department of Housing and Urban Development" ("HUD"). Mr. George seeks damages allegedly resulting from the defendants' concealment of a tax lien on a property he was hired to develop. On November 10, 2016, I filed an Order and Opinion granting the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, partly for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and partly for untimeliness under the applicable statute of limitations. (ECF nos. 19, 20) On December 5, 2016, Mr. George filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. (ECF no. 21)
Now before the court is Mr. George's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. (ECF no. 22) Although the format is confusing,
"[T]he standard for obtaining a stay pending appeal is essentially the same as that for obtaining a preliminary injunction." Conestoga Wood Specialities Coip. v. Secretary of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2013 WL 1277419 at *1 (3d Cir. Feb. 8, 2013). Like most preliminary injunctions, a stay pending appeal is governed by four equitable factors:
"(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
(3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and
(4) where the public interest lies."
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (line breaks added for clarity)). Accord Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004).
Clearly, the application must be denied.
Plaintiff's motion does not address the merits at all. There is no showing, "strong" or otherwise, of likelihood of success on appeal.
Nor is there any showing of irreparable injury. This is an action in which the plaintiff sought damages. By definition, the court's denial of damages is an injury that can be remedied by an award of damages. And an injury that can be redressed by damages is the very essence of an injury that is not irreparable, and cannot be the subject of equitable relief.
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine what meaningful relief a stay could afford. The order appealed from dismissed a claim for damages. It does not call upon anyone to do anything. It is unclear what, if anything, needs to be stayed, even from the plaintiff's point of view.
Accordingly, IT IS this 11th day of April, 2017
ORDERED that the motion for a stay pending appeal (ECF no. 22) is DENIED.
Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 91-92 (3d Cir. 1992).