Herbert v. SanFeliz

Background

Jeremiah Folsom Herbert sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants illegally searched and arrested him without a valid warrant. In a later letter, he sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction—forms of emergency court relief intended to prevent imminent, irreparable harm while a lawsuit is pending.

Herbert alleged that the defendants used retaliation and harassment to limit his telephone use and family visits at the Sullivan County Jail. He also alleged that they verbally and physically abused him in retaliation for this lawsuit. The court understood the application as raising two possible claims: retaliation and harassment through limits on telephone use and family visits, and retaliatory verbal and physical abuse. The court assumed that “Defendants” referred to Christina SanFeliz, Devinnie M. Depuy, and Christopher Fox because Herbert did not identify particular defendants in his application.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the same general standard to both types of emergency relief. Herbert had to show, among other things, a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions suitable for litigation, a likelihood of irreparable harm without an injunction, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest. The court emphasized that this relief is extraordinary and is not automatically available, even when defendants have not responded.

The court held that Herbert’s allegations were nonspecific and conclusory. He referred to harassment, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and possible future punishment, but did not provide details about which defendants were involved, when the conduct occurred, or what continuing harm was threatened. Although courts read submissions from people without lawyers less strictly, the court found that Herbert still had not provided enough facts to show likely irreparable harm.

The court further held that, even if some allegations were specific, Herbert had not shown actual and imminent irreparable harm from limited telephone access or family visits. He did not identify specific harm caused by the telephone restrictions or any harm caused by limited visits. The court also noted that incarcerated people do not have an unlimited right to telephone calls.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Herbert’s application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion, docketed as Docket Number 12, and mail Herbert a copy of the order. The order did not decide the merits of Herbert’s separate claims alleging an unlawful search and arrest.