Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 15, 2025

Baker Jr. v. Hannah-Jones

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:24-cv-08760
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Baker Jr. v. Hannah-Jones, Judge Furman dismissed the case for failure to state a claim after Baker did not respond to an order to show cause.

Who this affects

Ralph W. Baker Jr. and the defendants, Nikole Hannah-Jones et al.; the case was dismissed and closed.

What happened

In Ralph W. Baker Jr. v. Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., the court had ordered Baker to explain why his complaint should not be dismissed. The order set a January 9, 2025 deadline.

Baker did not file anything by that deadline. The opinion refers to reasons explained in an earlier memorandum, but those reasons are not included in the provided text.

Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed the case for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. He also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Baker Jr. v. Hannah-Jones · No. 1:24-cv-08760
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Jan. 15, 2025

Background

On December 11, 2024, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order requiring Ralph W. Baker Jr. to explain why the action should not be dismissed. The court set January 9, 2025, as the deadline and warned that it could dismiss the action, in whole or in part, without further notice if Baker did not respond.

Baker did not file anything by the deadline. The present order says that the earlier memorandum explained several reasons why dismissal might be warranted, but the provided opinion does not state those reasons.

Ruling

The court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. This is a threshold ruling that means the court found the complaint legally insufficient to support relief; the provided order does not give further details about the alleged claims or deficiencies. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.