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.

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
No tags yet.
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square


  • Instagram Social Icon
  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Google+ Black Square
  • Twitter Clean
  • LinkedIn Basic Black

Attorney Advertising. This website is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.


This web site is designed to provide general information only and to help in the choice of appropriate legal counsel. The information contained herein should not be construed as legal advice. Legal jurisdictions differ on major and minor aspects of the law and each legal situation is unique; requiring that all legal situations be addressed with qualified legal counsel. Statutes and case law frequently change; the accuracy of this information can only be represented as of the date of publication.


Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Submitting or receiving information web does not create an siteattorney client relationship. No attorney clientthis relationship will exist unless you meet with one of our attorneys and sign a retainer agreement. Please do not submit any information that is case specific, personal or confidential. 

RSS Feed
  • LinkedIn App Icon
  • Blogger App Icon
  • Wix Twitter page
  • RSS Social Icon