Jones v. Rodi (3:19-cv-01866-VAB)

ORDER denying (Document 40) Motion for Summary Judgment; denying (Document 41) Motion for Declaratory Judgment. For the reasons set forth in the attached Ruling and Order, LPC Rodi's (Document 40) motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Because this matter will be proceeding to trial, the Court will consider appointing counsel for Mr. Jones before setting further scheduling deadlines, including a trial date.

Mr. Jones has also filed a motion seeking "declaratory relief." ECF No. (Document 41) . This mot ion is DENIED.

To the extent that Mr. Jones seeks declaratory relief as a remedy for an established a violation of his rights, the Court denies his motion on the ground that a judge or jury verdict in his favor would already necessarily reflect a finding that the Defendant violated his rights. See Richard v. Martin, No. 3:20-cv-1354 (CSH), 2022 WL 5246814, at *5 (Oct. 6, 2022) ("[I]f Richard prevails on his claims asserted under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth an d Fourteenth Amendments, the Court would necessarily determine that the defendants had violated his constitutional rights. Thus, a separate award of declaratory relief is unnecessary."); Sofi Classic S.A. de C.V. v. Hurowitz, 444 F. Supp. 2d 231, 24950 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim seeks resolution of legal issues that will, of necessity, be resolved in the course of the litigation of the other causes of action. Therefore, the claim is duplicative ...[and] is dismissed.").

Although Mr. Jones's motion is styled as a request for declaratory relief, the authorities he cites relate primarily to motions for preliminary injunctions. The motion, however, does not specify the nature o f any interim injunctive relief that Mr. Jones seeks. To the extent that he does seek a preliminary injunction, the Court denies his motion on the ground that he has shown neither a likelihood of success on the merits nor irreparable harm in the abse nce of an injunction. See Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F. 3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2009) ("A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate: (1) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the movant's favor, and (2) irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

ORDER granting (Document 20) Motion to Amend/Correct; denying (Document 21) Motion to Amend/Correct. For the reason discussed in the attached order, Mr. Jones's first motion for leave to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 20, construed as both a request to reopen the case and as a request to file an amended complaint, is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to reopen the case and docket the proposed amended complaint attached to the motion as the operative Amended Complaint. Mr. Jones's second motion to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 21, is DENIED. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 7/30/2021. (Shaffer, Chelsea)

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER dismissing the Complaint for the reasons stated therein, and denying Mr. Jones's second motion for a temporary restraining order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.



Mr. Jones may move to reopen along with an amended complaint by June 5, 2020. If Mr. Jones does not comply with this order, the dismissal of this case is with prejudice.

Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 4/10/2020.(Conde, Djenab)

ORDER denying (Document 8) Motion for TRO for the reasons stated in the attached order. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/14/2020. (Conde, Djenab)