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
- 1
In Robert Murray v. City of New York, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Robert Murray's action was dismissed, affecting his claims against the City of New York, H& H, John Doe, and the two Jane Doe defendants. The judgment also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal.
What happened
Robert Murray, known as Leviticus Lucifer, sued the City of New York and other named and unnamed defendants. The judgment does not describe the claims or the events underlying the action.
The court dismissed the action for the reasons stated in its September 2, 2025, order. That earlier order is not included in the opinion provided here, so the basis for dismissal cannot be determined from this text.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
The detailed version
- Murray v. City of New York et al H & H · No. 1:25-cv-04734
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 3, 2025
Disposition
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action. It stated that the dismissal was based on the reasons given in a September 2, 2025, order. That order is not included in the provided opinion, so this judgment does not identify the claims, the dismissal ground, or the court’s substantive reasoning.
Appeal-related ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to pursue an appeal without paying the required fees—for purposes of an appeal. The judgment cites a Supreme Court decision explaining that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
Effect
The action was dismissed, and appeal fee-waiver status was denied. The provided text does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.