Murray v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03629
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Murray v. City of New York, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Robert Murray and the named defendants—the City of New York, the D.O.C. Food Service Department, and John Doe—were affected by dismissal of the action. Murray was also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
What happened
Murray v. City of New York names Robert Murray as the plaintiff and the City of New York, the D.O.C. Food Service Department, and John Doe as defendants. The provided judgment does not describe the claims or underlying events.
The court dismissed the action for the reasons stated in a May 6, 2025, order. That order is not included in the provided opinion, so the basis for dismissal is not shown here.
The court also said any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Murray permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment on May 7, 2025.
The detailed version
- Murray v. City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-03629
- Laura Swain
- May 7, 2025
Background
The civil judgment identifies Robert Murray, captioned as “known as Leviticus Bofmet Lucfer, Descendent of Hebrew Slaves,” as the plaintiff. It names the City of New York, the D.O.C. Food Service Department, and John Doe as defendants. The provided text does not state the facts, claims, or legal arguments in the action.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action “for the reasons stated in” its May 6, 2025, order. The May 6 order is not included in the provided text, so the judgment does not show why the court dismissed the action or whether the court reached the merits of any claim.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal, meaning Murray could not appeal under the fee-waiver status addressed by that statute. The judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.