Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 13, 2025

Fernandez v. Fredrickson

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-02103
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePreliminary InjunctionPro Se
In one sentence

Fernandez v. Fredrickson: Judge Swain denied emergency relief and counsel, but granted permission for electronic filing.

Who this affects

Regla Fernandez was denied emergency injunctive relief and appointment of counsel, with the counsel request denied without prejudice to renewal. She was granted permission to file electronically and was denied fee-free appeal status for an appeal from this order.

What happened

In Fernandez v. Fredrickson, Regla Fernandez, who represented herself, asked for emergency court action, a free lawyer, and permission to file documents electronically.

The court denied emergency relief because Fernandez’s submissions did not show likely success or sufficiently serious questions about her claims. It also denied a lawyer for now because it was too early to evaluate the case, but said she could renew that request later. The court granted permission for electronic filing.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also stated that an appeal would not be considered to have been filed in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that purpose.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Fernandez v. Fredrickson · No. 1:25-cv-02103
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 13, 2025

Background

Regla Fernandez, appearing without a lawyer, filed an application for emergency injunctive relief, a motion for appointment of free legal counsel, and a motion for permission to participate in electronic case filing. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.

Emergency injunctive relief

The court explained that emergency injunctive relief requires a showing of likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions about the merits combined with a decisive balance of hardships. The court found that Fernandez’s submissions did not demonstrate either a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions meeting that standard. It therefore denied her request for an order requiring the defendants to respond and stated that it would issue an explanatory order later.

Appointment of counsel

The court considered the factors governing a self-represented indigent litigant’s request for appointed counsel, including the apparent merits, efforts to obtain a lawyer, and ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. Because the case was at an early stage and the court could not yet assess its merits, it denied the motion for counsel without prejudice to renewal later.

Electronic filing

The court granted Fernandez’s motion for permission to file documents electronically. After she registers for electronic filing, court documents and documents filed by another party will be served through electronic notice at her designated email address rather than by postal mail.

Disposition

The court denied Fernandez’s application for emergency injunctive relief and her motion for appointment of counsel. It granted her motion for permission for electronic case filing and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at ECF 7 and 8. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that purpose.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.