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 preliminary-injunction and protective-order requests but granted leave to file a supplemental pleading.
Sanjay Tripathy, the existing defendants, the additional defendant Tripathy sought to name, and the inmates whose affidavits were submitted.
What happened
In Tripathy v. Feuz, Sanjay Tripathy asked the court for an emergency order requiring action based largely on arguments from an earlier request, added allegations about personnel at Collins Correctional Facility, and permission to add one person as a defendant. He also asked the court to limit public access to affidavits from other inmates.
The court denied the preliminary-injunction request because Tripathy had not shown a likely success on the merits or a risk of irreparable harm. It granted permission to add the new allegations and defendant through a supplemental pleading, and temporarily paused the defendants’ response deadline. The court also denied the request to restrict access to the inmate affidavits.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ruled that the affidavits were not supported by a compelling reason for secrecy and reminded Tripathy that he must serve any newly added defendant because he was not proceeding without paying the required filing costs.
The detailed version
- Tripathy v. Feuz · No. 7:21-cv-05349
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 12, 2022
Background
Sanjay Tripathy submitted a January 3, 2022, letter asking for a preliminary injunction—an extraordinary court order issued before a final decision—to protect him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. He also asked to supplement his complaint under Rule 15(d), which permits adding later events or allegations. A January 4 letter supplied additional materials supporting the preliminary-injunction request.
The motion largely repeated arguments from Tripathy’s earlier request for a temporary restraining order, which the court denied on September 14, 2021. The motion also included new allegations concerning personnel at Collins Correctional Facility, where Tripathy was incarcerated, and sought to add one of those individuals as a defendant. Tripathy attached affidavits from other Collins inmates and asked the court to restrict public access to them because he believed the inmates could face harassment by correctional officers.
Rulings
The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that Tripathy had presented no new facts or arguments showing either that he was likely to succeed on the merits or that he would suffer irreparable harm without the requested relief.
The court granted Tripathy leave to supplement the complaint, but only to include the additional allegations in the motion and name the additional defendant identified there. The court stated that it could issue another summons for that defendant and that Tripathy would have to serve the summons and complaint, including the supplemental pleading. The time for all defendants to answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond was stayed until the supplemental pleading was filed; afterward, defendants would have 21 days to respond.
The court denied the request for a protective order concerning the inmate affidavits. It found that Tripathy had not shown a compelling interest in restricting access that outweighed the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. In particular, he had not explained how or why the inmates would face retaliation because of the affidavits.
Other Instructions
The court reminded Tripathy that, because he was not proceeding without paying the required filing costs, he was responsible for complying with service requirements for any additional defendant. It also reminded him to notify the court in writing if his address changed and warned that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.