Curry v. Black
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-04603
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Curry v. Black, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the amended complaint, allowing only the 2023 force claim to be repleaded.
John Curry’s claims were dismissed at the complaint-screening stage. He may file a second amended complaint about the 2023 law-enforcement incident within 30 days and may bring the sex-offender-registration and 2024 law-enforcement claims in new civil actions.
What happened
In Curry v. Black, John Curry filed an amended complaint without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, claiming that parole officers and others violated his rights. The court considered claims about parole-revocation procedures, sex-offender registration, and two incidents in which law enforcement allegedly used a stun gun against him.
The court dismissed the parole due-process claim because the amended complaint did not allege that Curry was denied required procedures. It dismissed the sex-offender-registration claim because it went beyond the limited permission to amend, but said Curry could bring it in a new lawsuit. It also dismissed both law-enforcement claims for not connecting the named defendants to the incidents.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain gave Curry 30 days to file a second amended complaint concerning only the 2023 law-enforcement incident. She did not allow amendment of the 2024 incident in this case, although Curry may bring that claim in a new lawsuit, and she denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Curry v. Black · No. 1:24-cv-04603
- Gregory Woods
- July 2, 2025
Background
John Curry proceeded without a lawyer and filed the action without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). He sued Parole Officer L. Black and A. Ramirez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the court directed him to amend his original complaint, Curry filed an amended complaint.
The original complaint appeared to challenge the procedures used before his parole was revoked in June 2023. Curry had alleged that parole officers did not provide him with a preliminary hearing. The amended complaint instead included allegations concerning sex-offender registration and two alleged uses of force: one in 2023 and another in October 2024.
Court’s analysis
The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a complaint over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
Parole due-process claim. The court dismissed this claim for failure to state a claim. Curry’s amended complaint did not allege facts showing that he was denied due process during his 2023 parole-revocation proceedings. The court declined to give him another opportunity to amend this claim because he had already been given permission to address it and did not do so.
Sex-offender-registration claim. The court dismissed this claim because it was beyond the scope of the limited amendment previously allowed. The dismissal was without prejudice to Curry’s reasserting the claim in a new civil action.
2023 and 2024 law-enforcement claims. Curry alleged that law enforcement used a stun gun against him during incidents in 2023 and 2024. The court dismissed both claims for failure to state a claim because the pleadings did not allege facts showing that either named defendant was involved in those incidents.
Leave to amend and disposition
The court granted Curry 30 days of limited leave to file a second amended complaint concerning the 2023 law-enforcement claim. The court did not grant leave to amend the 2024 claim because the pleadings did not suggest that the 2023 and 2024 incidents were related as required for joining claims and defendants in one action. Curry may pursue the 2024 claim in a new civil action.
The court dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). If Curry does not file a second amended complaint about the 2023 incident within 30 days, the clerk will be directed to enter judgment. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The clerk was directed to keep the action open until civil judgment is entered.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.