Jr. v. Any and All Doctors That Gave the Order to Forcibly Injure the Plaintiff…
Robert Derek Lurch Jr. v. Any and All Doctors That Gave the Order to Forcibly Injure the Plaintiff and Any Staff That Assisted; Peter Moger, EMT; Alex Teo, EMT; Madelyn Estevez
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00820
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lurch v. Any and All Doctors, Judge Swain dismissed Lurch’s federal claims and declined jurisdiction over his state-law claims.
Robert Derek Lurch Jr.’s federal claims were dismissed, and his state-law claims were left undecided in federal court; the judgment affected the claims against the named defendants and denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Robert Derek Lurch Jr. v. Any and All Doctors That Gave the Order to Forcibly Injure the Plaintiff and Any Staff That Assisted, Robert Derek Lurch Jr. sued several defendants, including Peter Moger, Alex Teo, and Madelyn Estevez.
The judgment says the court dismissed Lurch’s federal claims under a federal statute governing certain lawsuits filed without sufficient legal merit. It also says the court declined to decide Lurch’s state-law claims in federal court.
Judge Swain’s court further ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
The detailed version
- Jr. v. Any and All Doctors That Gave the Order to Forcibly Injure the Plaintiff… · No. 1:25-cv-00820
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 19, 2025
Background
Robert Derek Lurch Jr. was the plaintiff. The defendants were identified as “Any and All Doctors That Gave the Order to Forcibly Injure the Plaintiff and Any Staff That Assisted,” Peter Moger, EMT, Alex Teo, EMT, and Madelyn Estevez. The judgment does not describe the underlying events or the specific legal theories in Lurch’s complaint.
Rulings
The court entered judgment for the reasons stated in its October 14, 2025 order, which is not included in the provided text. It dismissed Lurch’s federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The judgment does not state additional details about the reason for that dismissal.
The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lurch’s state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the federal court’s authority to decide related state-law claims in the same case; declining it means the judgment did not decide those claims on their merits in this federal action.
Appeal-Filing Ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The judgment was dated November 19, 2025.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.