Pro Se Injunction Request based on Prosecutor's Conviction Rating Denied
Attorneys, and more specifically criminal defense attorneys, are usually judged by their success. There is no multiple choice test that qualifies one attorney more than another but rather most are measured by their success rating - a criminal defense attorney's ability to obtain an acquittal or dismissal and, in this case, the prosecutor's ability to obtain convictions.
The Pro Se complainant here wants an injunction because the Pro Se believes that the conviction rating (i.e. a measure of success) will result in unjust and inappropriate convictions. The Court indicates that, among other things, Pro Se bases this upon findings made in a Freedom of Information Law request.
"To successfully seek a preliminary injunction, a moving party must show four elements: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood that the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not granted; (3) that the balance of hardships tips in the moving party's favor; and (4) that the public interest is not disserved by relief." JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., 618 F. App'x 31, 33 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 79-80 (2d Cir. 2010)).
The Court denies the request. There is simply nothing in the complaint (or second amended complaint) that would entitle the Pro Se to an injunction, which requires the above showing, as the Pro Se did not sufficiently allege the above elements:
As Plaintiff's constitutional claim stemming from the alleged "Conviction Rate Policy" fails on the merits, his motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. See Marcavage v. City of New York, 918 F. Supp. 2d 266, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("Because Plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits, their motion for a preliminary injunction is also denied."); Save Our Parks v. Kempthorne, No. 06-CV-6859 (NRB), 2006 WL 3378703, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2006).
Accordingly, the Pro Se's request for an injunction is denied. Still, the Pro Se's claim against several Court Officers for, inter alia, excessive force remains. The case is Leibovitz v. City of New York.