Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 16, 2025

Moments v. Adams

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:24-cv-05973
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
12
Civil ProcedurePro SeMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Moments v. Adams, Judge Furman treated Betta Moments’s papers as opposition to the pending dismissal motion and set a reply deadline.

Who this affects

Betta Moments and the defendants in the pending case, including Mayor Eric Adams and the three John/Jane Doe defendants identified in the complaint.

What happened

In Moments v. Adams, Betta Moments submitted documents to the court without a lawyer. The court said it would treat those documents as Betta Moments’s opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The court reminded Betta Moments that filings should be sent to the Pro Se Intake Unit rather than directly to the judge’s chambers. It also set May 28, 2025, as the deadline for any reply by the defendants.

Judge Furman did not decide the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims in this order. He directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Betta Moments.

The detailed version

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

Case
Moments v. Adams · No. 1:24-cv-05973
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
May 16, 2025

What the order did

The court received documents from Plaintiff Betta Moments, who was proceeding without a lawyer. The court directed that the documents be treated as Betta Moments’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, identified as ECF No. 17.

The order reminded Betta Moments that future submissions should not be sent directly to chambers. Instead, they should be mailed to the Pro Se Intake Unit at the address provided in the order. The court gave Defendants until May 28, 2025, to file a reply, if any, and directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Betta Moments.

What the order did not decide

This order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss, resolve the constitutional claims, or determine whether the complaint should be dismissed. The opinion text includes material describing Defendants’ arguments that the complaint does not state a viable claim, but the operative order only addresses how Betta Moments’s documents would be treated and the schedule for a possible reply.

Ruling

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that the submitted documents be treated as Betta Moments’s opposition, set a May 28, 2025 reply deadline for Defendants if they filed a reply, and directed the Clerk to mail the order to Betta Moments.

The authoritative version

Read the full 12-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.