Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 6, 2025

Mouzon v. United States

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:23-cv-10911
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

Judge Halpern granted defendants’ motion in Mouzon v. United States, dismissing FTCA claims without prejudice and Bivens claims with prejudice.

Who this affects

Robbie Mouzon’s claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens were dismissed; the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.

What happened

In Mouzon v. United States, the defendants moved to dismiss Robbie Mouzon’s complaint. The judgment refers to claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and claims described as Bivens claims.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act claims without prejudice and the Bivens claims with prejudice.

Judge Halpern denied leave to amend because the court found amendment would be futile. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Mouzon v. United States · No. 7:23-cv-10911
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Jan. 6, 2025

Disposition

The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s Opinion and Order dated January 6, 2025, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Claims and Effect of Dismissal

The judgment states that Robbie Mouzon’s claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the judgment did not bar refiling those claims. It states that Mouzon’s claims under Bivens were dismissed with prejudice, meaning those claims were barred from being refiled.

Leave to Amend

The court denied leave to amend. It stated that the defects in the FTCA and Bivens claims would make any amendment futile.

Appeal and Case Status

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees. The judgment states that the case is closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.