Dubose v. Jiminez
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-02124
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dubose v. Jiminez, Judge Briccetti denied Tyrek Dubose’s request to prevent prison officials from hiding funds.
Tyrek Dubose’s request for emergency relief was denied; the order also affected the defendants by declining to restrict their assets.
What happened
In Dubose v. Jiminez, incarcerated plaintiff Tyrek Dubose asked the court for an emergency order preventing prison officials from hiding money that he believed could pay a future judgment.
Dubose said he overheard correction officer Del Bianco say that officials would move the money so Dubose could not collect it, even if he won the lawsuit. The court said an emergency order cannot be used simply to protect defendants’ assets in case they are later held liable. It also said any judgment would likely be paid by the State of New York rather than by an individual defendant.
The court denied Dubose’s motion as plainly without merit. Judge Briccetti also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees; the clerk was instructed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Dubose v. Jiminez · No. 7:22-cv-02124
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 13, 2022
Background
On May 13, 2022, the court received Tyrek Dubose’s motion for a temporary restraining order, an emergency court order intended to preserve the situation until the court can consider the dispute more fully. Dubose, who is incarcerated, alleged that prison officials were violating his constitutional rights. He asked the court to stop the defendants from hiding funds that he believed would be used to pay a judgment in the case.
Dubose specifically alleged that he overheard defendant Del Bianco, identified as a correction officer, tell colleagues that Dubose “can’t get our money if we move it” and that Dubose was going to win the lawsuit but would have nothing to collect.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that a temporary restraining order may not be issued simply to safeguard a defendant’s assets in case the defendant is eventually found liable. Because that was the purpose of Dubose’s request, the court concluded that the requested order was inappropriate. The court further stated that, if Dubose prevailed at trial, it was highly likely that any judgment would be paid by the State of New York rather than by an individual defendant personally.
Disposition
The court denied Dubose’s motion as plainly without merit. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The clerk was instructed to terminate the motion, and the court stated that it would mail Dubose a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.