Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 12, 2025

Munroe v. New York University

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:25-cv-03431
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Munroe v. New York University, Judge Netburn denied Munroe’s request to stop his state housing eviction proceedings under federal law.

Who this affects

Luis Ricardo Munroe and the ongoing state-court housing proceeding involving New York University.

What happened

In Munroe v. New York University, Luis Ricardo Munroe asked the federal court to intervene before New York University’s eviction action continued in state housing court. He described the request as involving his federal civil-rights and disability claims.

The court treated Munroe’s letter as a request to stop or pause the state-court eviction proceedings. It explained that federal law generally bars federal courts from stopping state-court proceedings, subject to three narrow exceptions, and that those exceptions did not permit the requested relief here.

United States Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn denied Munroe’s request to stop or pause the state housing proceeding. The court encouraged him to contact the City Bar Justice Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project for possible assistance or referrals.

The detailed version

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

Case
Munroe v. New York University · No. 1:25-cv-03431
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
May 12, 2025

Background

On May 7, 2025, and docketed on May 9, 2025, Luis Ricardo Munroe filed a letter asking the court to intervene in his ongoing state-court housing proceedings. He asked the court to assert jurisdiction over his federal civil-rights and Americans with Disabilities Act claims before the state housing court proceeded with New York University’s eviction action. The court construed the request as seeking an order stopping or pausing the state-court eviction proceedings.

Legal standard

The court applied the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. That law generally prohibits a federal court from issuing an injunction—a court order requiring someone to stop an action—to halt proceedings in state court. The statute contains three exceptions: when Congress expressly authorizes the injunction, when it is necessary to protect the federal court’s jurisdiction, or when it is necessary to protect or enforce the federal court’s judgments. The court stated that these exceptions are narrowly interpreted and noted that courts in the district regularly hold that the Act bars federal interference with state eviction proceedings.

Ruling

Judge Sarah Netburn denied Munroe’s request to enjoin or stay his state-court housing proceeding. The opinion did not decide the merits of Munroe’s federal civil-rights or disability claims. The court also encouraged Munroe to contact the City Bar Justice Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project, which could assist him or refer him to other listed projects.

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.