Zielinski v. New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent…
Zielinski v. New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01776
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Zielinski v. New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Judge Swain denied immediate injunctive relief sought by the incarcerated plaintiff.
Jeremy Zielinski’s emergency requests for immediate relief were denied; the order also affected his ability to appeal without paying the required fees. The underlying claims against NYSCOPBA, Kathy Hochul, Daniel Martuscello, and the unidentified defendants were not decided in this order.
What happened
In Zielinski v. New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Jeremy Zielinski, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sought emergency court orders concerning an alleged work strike at correctional facilities. He requested orders requiring disclosures, stopping negotiations related to facility operations, suppressing the alleged strike, and restoring services for incarcerated people.
The court explained that immediate injunctive relief requires a showing of likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the claims or serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. The court found that Zielinski’s filings did not make the required showing.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the requests for immediate injunctive relief raised in Zielinski’s declaration. She stated that a later order would explain the reasons in connection with the complaint, and denied fee-free appeal status for any appeal from this order because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Zielinski v. New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent… · No. 1:25-cv-01776
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
Jeremy Zielinski, who is incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, filed a declaration and supporting memorandum seeking emergency relief. He sued the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (NYSCOPBA); Kathy Hochul, the Governor of New York; Daniel Martuscello, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; and unidentified defendants.
Zielinski alleged an illegal work strike at Woodbourne and other correctional facilities. His requested relief included orders requiring state officials to disclose information about NYSCOPBA and employees allegedly involved in the strike; preventing NYSCOPBA and strike participants from seeking operational changes from state officials; requiring the strike to cease; directing state officials to take legally available steps to suppress the strike; and restoring incarcerated people’s access to communications, visitation, law-library and notary services, hygiene supplies, meals, and medical and mental-health care.
Legal standard
For a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, the court required Zielinski to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions to make the dispute a fair ground for litigation, together with a balance of hardships strongly favoring him. The court described immediate injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing by the person seeking it.
Ruling
The court found that Zielinski’s submissions, including his complaint, did not demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with the required balance of hardships. The court therefore denied Zielinski’s requests for immediate injunctive relief raised in his declaration. It stated that a subsequent order addressing the complaint would explain the reasons for that denial.
The court also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims or provide the promised further explanation of the denial.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.