is likely to redress the injury.” Deshawn E. v. Safir, 156 F.3d 340, 344 (2d Cir.1998) (citing Northeastern Fla. Ch. of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 663, 113 S.Ct. 2297, 124 L.Ed.2d 586 (1993)). “A plaintiff seeking injunctive or declaratory relief cannot rely on past injury to satisfy the injury requirement but must show a likelihood that he or she will be injured in the future.” Deshawn, 156 F.3d at 344 (citing City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105-106, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)). Here, as plaintiff has provided no evidence of any likelihood of recurrence of the events of May 3, the claims for prospective injunctive relief against Ms. Shea in her official capacity must be dismissed. Compare Deshawn, 156 F.3d at 344-45 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the only remaining
holding that prospective injunctive relief is appropriate in a federal civil rights action only if a reasonable likelihood exists the plaintiff will again be subjected to the unconstitutional actions holding that an organization whose members were potential targets of future prosecutions had standing to seek injunctive relief holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because they failed to demonstrate any likelihood that they would end up back in jail where alleged constitutional violations occurred holding that a class of juveniles had standing to seek injunctive relief in federal court against future interrogations by a police squad because of the strong likelihood that the challenged interrogation methods would be used again