Kenyatta v. The City of New York
- Kimba Wood
- 1:25-cv-02868
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Kenyatta v. The City of New York, Judge Kimba Wood dismissed claims for the Kenyatta Foundation and the plaintiff’s own claims without prejudice.
Charles Kenyatta Jr.’s claims for himself and any claims he sought to bring on behalf of the Kenyatta Foundation were dismissed without prejudice. The defendants were not required to litigate the claims in this judgment.
What happened
Kenyatta v. The City of New York involved claims by Charles Kenyatta Jr., also known as Charliecee, against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State of New York. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims.
The court dismissed without prejudice any claims Kenyatta sought to bring for the Kenyatta Foundation. It also dismissed without prejudice the claims he brought for himself because he lacked standing, meaning he had not shown a sufficient personal connection to bring those claims. The court therefore found that it lacked authority to hear them. The Clerk was directed to end all pending motions.
Judge Kimba Wood’s court also found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The judgment was entered on July 18, 2025.
The detailed version
- Kenyatta v. The City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-02868
- Kimba Wood
- July 18, 2025
Disposition
The court entered judgment dismissing without prejudice any claims Charles Kenyatta Jr., also known as Charliecee, sought to bring on behalf of the Kenyatta Foundation. The judgment does not state the reason for that dismissal, referring instead to the court’s July 16, 2025 Order.
The court dismissed without prejudice Kenyatta’s claims brought on his own behalf for lack of standing. Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal connection to the alleged harm and the requested relief. Because the court found that Kenyatta lacked standing, it also concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked authority to decide those claims. The judgment cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
Other Orders
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The judgment does not provide further details about the claims or the reasoning in the July 16 Order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.