Vazquez-Diaz v. United States
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-06757
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vazquez-Diaz v. United States, Judge Briccetti denied requests to investigate past arrests and impose a restraining order.
The order affected Luis A. Vazquez-Diaz's requests for an investigation and a permanent restraining order, and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Vazquez-Diaz v. United States, Luis A. Vazquez-Diaz asked the court to investigate arrests from April 1990 in Reading, Pennsylvania. He also sought a permanent restraining order involving certain officers, correctional staff, former lawyers, and others.
The court said it did not have authority to grant the relief requested in the motion and denied it. The court separately denied the request for a restraining order because Vazquez-Diaz had not presented facts showing that such an order was necessary.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the Clerk to terminate the motion. He also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
The detailed version
- Vazquez-Diaz v. United States · No. 7:21-cv-06757
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 23, 2021
Background
Luis A. Vazquez-Diaz filed a motion concerning his arrests in April 1990 in Reading, Pennsylvania. He also submitted an affidavit and letters describing his concerns regarding the United States and other countries. In addition, he requested a permanent restraining order against named officers of the 42nd precinct of Bronx County, New York, unnamed officers, correctional staff at facilities where he had been, and his former lawyers. He stated that facility staff and officers were conspiring with the Bronx County Supreme Court.
Rulings
The court stated that it did not have authority to grant the relief requested in the motion and therefore denied the motion. To the extent Vazquez-Diaz requested a restraining order, the court also denied that request because he had not presented facts demonstrating that such an order was necessary. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motion.
Appeal-related ruling
The court 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 permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The court directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Vazquez-Diaz at the address on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.