Vazquez v. City of New York
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-01573
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vazquez v. City of New York, Judge Stanton denied Juan Vazquez’s request for emergency relief without prejudice because his submissions lacked required support.
Juan M. Vazquez’s request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction; the order did not decide his underlying claims.
What happened
In Vazquez v. City of New York, Juan M. Vazquez, who was incarcerated and representing himself, asked the court for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against 32 defendants. His complaint raised claims involving retaliation, his state criminal appeal, appellate counsel, prescription orthopedic footwear, and the Driver Privacy Protection Act.
The court applied the same standard to both forms of emergency relief. Vazquez had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likely win on his claims or serious legal questions combined with hardships strongly favoring him. The court found that his motion and supporting memorandum did not explain what each defendant allegedly did or identify the specific injunction he wanted.
Judge Stanton denied Vazquez’s request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion. The order did not decide the underlying claims, and it allowed Vazquez to renew the request later.
The detailed version
- Vazquez v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-01573
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 1, 2021
Background
Juan M. Vazquez filed a 500-page complaint with attachments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He named 32 defendants, including employees and officials of the New York City Department of Correction and other city and state agencies, as well as people involved in his state criminal proceedings. The opinion states that Vazquez was incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility, was representing himself, and had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees in a separate order.
Vazquez alleged retaliation for filing grievances and complaints, interference with his efforts to litigate his state criminal appeal, denial of appellate counsel, denial of prescription orthopedic footwear, and violations of the Driver Privacy Protection Act. He also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
Legal standard
The court explained that, in this circuit, the standard for a temporary restraining order is the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction. A plaintiff seeking that extraordinary relief must show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation together with a balance of hardships that strongly favors the plaintiff.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Vazquez had not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. The court also noted that his motion and memorandum provided few facts showing how each defendant was personally involved in violating his federally protected rights. In addition, he did not specify the exact injunctive relief he wanted the court to order.
Disposition
The court denied Vazquez’s request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction without prejudice to renewal at a later stage. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and mail Vazquez a copy of the order. The order addressed the request for preliminary relief; it did not resolve the underlying claims in the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.