Murray v. City of New York et al H & H
Robert Murray, known as Leviticus Lucifer v. City of New York et al H & H; John Doe; Jane Doe; Jane Doe
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04734
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Robert Murray v. City of New York, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Murray neither submitted required forms nor paid the filing fees.
Robert Murray’s civil action was dismissed without prejudice because he did not submit the required filing forms or pay the required filing fees. The opinion does not state that the court decided the claims against the City of New York or the other named defendants.
What happened
In Robert Murray, known as Leviticus Lucifer v. City of New York et al H& H; John Doe; Jane Doe; Jane Doe, the court had ordered Murray to submit a request to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, a prisoner authorization, or the required $405 in fees. The order also required him to comply within 30 days.
The Clerk’s Office received notice that the earlier order had been returned as undeliverable. Murray had not updated his address or otherwise contacted the court, and he did not submit the required forms or pay the fees. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar a later filing. It also directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Murray permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
The detailed version
- Murray v. City of New York et al H & H · No. 1:25-cv-04734
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 2, 2025
Background
On June 16, 2025, the court ordered Robert Murray to do one of two things within 30 days: submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront and a prisoner authorization, or pay the $405 required to file a civil action. The court warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.
On July 29, 2025, the Clerk’s Office received notice that the June 16 order had been returned as undeliverable. The opinion states that, as of the date the Clerk’s Office received Murray’s complaint, he had not updated the court with his new address or otherwise communicated with it.
Ruling
Because Murray did not submit the required application and prisoner authorization or pay the filing fees, the court dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The dismissal was based on the filing requirements and did not resolve the underlying claims. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.