United States v. New York City Board of Elections
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-02617
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In United States v. New York City Board of Elections, Judge Woods granted dismissal, dismissing federal claims with prejudice and state claims without prejudice.
The plaintiff and the New York City Board of Elections; the plaintiff’s federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the state claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
In United States v. New York City Board of Elections, the New York City Board of Elections asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. The judgment does not identify the plaintiff by name or explain the underlying claims.
The court granted the Board’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice, meaning they cannot be brought again in this case, and dismissed the state claims without prejudice, meaning the judgment does not bar refiling those claims. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees and closed the case.
Judge Gregory Woods’s October 31, 2025 order supplied the reasons for the ruling, but those reasons are not included in the provided judgment. The judgment was entered on November 3, 2025.
The detailed version
- United States v. New York City Board of Elections · No. 1:25-cv-02617
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 3, 2025
Background
The provided document is a judgment in a case brought by a plaintiff against the New York City Board of Elections. The judgment does not identify the plaintiff by name, describe the claims, or include the court’s reasons. It states that those reasons appear in an order dated October 31, 2025.
Ruling
The Board’s motion to dismiss was granted. The judgment states that the plaintiff’s federal claims were dismissed with prejudice and the state claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. As a result, the plaintiff was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, and the case was closed.
What the Judgment Does Not Establish
Because the October 31 order is not included, the provided text does not show the legal grounds for dismissal or whether the court reached the merits of any claim. The classification as a procedural order reflects that the document rules on a motion to dismiss rather than deciding the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.