Boothe v. Board of Education NYS
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03210
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Boothe v. Board of Education NYS, Judge Wood dismissed both plaintiffs’ claims after screening; Antrobus could not proceed without fees, and Boothe lacked standing.
Rory Boothe’s claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Andre Antrobus’s claims were dismissed without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule, and he remains barred from proceeding without prepaying fees while incarcerated unless he shows imminent danger of serious physical injury.
What happened
Rory Boothe and Andre Antrobus sued Board of Education NYS and New York City, alleging that information provided through their education was fraudulent and caused them harm. They sought $250 billion in damages and represented themselves.
The court dismissed Antrobus’s claims without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule because he had not paid the filing fee, had not requested permission to proceed without prepaying fees, and had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court dismissed Boothe’s claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not show a personal injury caused by the defendants that a federal court could remedy.
Judge Kimba M. Wood denied leave to amend, denied Antrobus’s request to proceed without prepaying fees, denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action.
The detailed version
- Boothe v. Board of Education NYS · No. 1:25-cv-03210
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 3, 2025
Background
Rory Boothe and Andre Antrobus, who were representing themselves, brought a federal-question action asserting a “fraud” claim against Board of Education NYS and New York City. The complaint alleged that defendants provided false or misleading information through the plaintiffs’ education and operated prejudicially. The alleged subjects included historical accounts, health information, fluoride, and race. Plaintiffs alleged emotional distress, mental anguish, prejudice, and injury to their brains’ cognitive skills, and sought $250,000,000,000 in damages.
Screening standard
The court explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires courts to screen complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief from governmental entities or their officers or employees. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed Boothe to proceed without prepaying fees. The opinion states that prisoners remain responsible for the filing fee even when granted that status.
Andre Antrobus
Antrobus was listed as a plaintiff but did not sign the complaint, pay the filing fees, or request permission to proceed without prepaying fees. The court stated that he was barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three-strikes” rule from filing a new action without prepaying fees while incarcerated. That rule permits an exception when a prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that the complaint did not allege facts suggesting such danger.
The court therefore denied Antrobus’s request to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissed the claims filed on his behalf without prejudice under the three-strikes rule. The court stated that Antrobus could start a new action by paying the filing fee, but that any new complaint would still be screened under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Rory Boothe
The court held that Boothe lacked standing, meaning he had not shown a personal injury that was caused by the defendants and could be remedied by the requested relief. The court concluded that his allegations about the public education system spreading information he believed was false did not provide factual support showing an actual, legally redressable injury. Because standing is part of the constitutional requirement that federal courts hear only genuine cases or controversies, the court dismissed Boothe’s claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Leave to amend and conclusion
The court declined to give either plaintiff permission to amend the complaint because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.