Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 29, 2025

Moore v. City of New York

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-04587
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissPro Se
In one sentence

In Moore v. City of New York, Chief Judge Swain dismissed Moore’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim and denied another amendment.

Who this affects

Ali Moore’s federal claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim; any state-law claims were not considered under supplemental jurisdiction. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal.

What happened

In Moore v. City of New York, Ali Moore alleged that two people he believed were undercover officers approached him at a Manhattan party on June 13, 2021. He said their conversation intimidated him, but he did not describe what they said.

The court had previously dismissed Moore’s original complaint for failing to state a claim and gave him 30 days to amend it. Moore filed an amended complaint, but it repeated the same facts. The court also declined to consider any state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction.

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, declined to give Moore another chance to amend, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Moore v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-04587
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 29, 2025

Background

Ali Moore, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued the City of New York and other defendants. He alleged that, on June 13, 2021, while attending a party in Manhattan, two individuals whom he believed were undercover officers approached him and engaged him in a conversation he did not enjoy. Moore said the encounter caused him to feel intimidated, but he did not describe the conversation.

Earlier Proceedings and Amended Complaint

In an October 25, 2024 order, the court dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and allowed Moore 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Moore may have asserted.

Moore filed an amended complaint on December 27, 2024. The court found that the amended pleading repeated the exact same facts as the original complaint. Because Moore had already received an opportunity to correct the complaint’s deficiencies, the court declined to allow another amendment.

Ruling

The court dismissed Moore’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It again declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court directed the Clerk to terminate Moore’s motion to correct errors in the amended complaint and to enter judgment.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

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.