Tripathy v. Feuz
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-05349
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tripathy v. Feuz, Judge Briccetti denied Tripathy’s renewed request for preliminary injunctive relief because he showed neither likely success nor irreparable harm.
Sanjay Tripathy’s request for preliminary injunctive relief was denied; the order also denied fee-free appeal status for an appeal from this order.
What happened
In Tripathy v. Feuz, Sanjay Tripathy renewed his request for a preliminary injunction, which is a court order issued before final judgment to prevent harm or preserve the situation while a case continues. The court had previously denied his request without prejudice to renewing it later.
Tripathy filed the renewed motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The court found that he presented no new fact or argument showing that he was likely to succeed in the case or that he would suffer harm that could not be repaired without immediate relief.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the motion for preliminary injunctive relief and directed the clerk to terminate it. The court also denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Tripathy v. Feuz · No. 7:21-cv-05349
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 14, 2021
Background
Sanjay Tripathy previously requested a preliminary injunction, meaning an order entered before the case ends to provide temporary relief. By order dated June 30, 2021, the court denied that request without prejudice to renewal at a later stage.
On September 10, 2021, Tripathy filed a renewed motion for injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that a party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation combined with a balance of hardships strongly favoring the moving party. The court described this relief as extraordinary and requiring a clear showing.
After reviewing Tripathy’s motion, the court found that he had provided no new fact or argument demonstrating either that he was likely to succeed on the merits or that he would suffer irreparable harm without the requested relief.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied Tripathy’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The clerk was instructed to terminate the motion, identified as docket entry 24.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal. The court directed its chambers to mail a copy of the order to Tripathy at the address on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.