Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 2, 2025

Roebuck v. City of New York

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:25-cv-07259
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

Roebuck v. City of New York was dismissed with prejudice after Cameron Roebuck failed to respond, Judge Subramanian ruled.

Who this affects

Cameron Roebuck’s case was dismissed with prejudice after he failed to submit the required response; the court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees.

What happened

In Cameron Roebuck v. City of New York et al., the court ordered Cameron Roebuck to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice because of concerns described in the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The court set November 14, 2025, as the deadline for Roebuck to submit a response. Roebuck did not submit the required letter.

Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the dismissal bars refiling the case. The court also denied Roebuck permission to appeal without paying filing fees, declared pending motions moot, canceled conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Roebuck v. City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-07259
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Dec. 2, 2025

Background

On November 7, 2025, the court ordered Cameron Roebuck to show cause, meaning explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice. The order cited concerns described in the defendants’ motion to dismiss and required Roebuck to submit a letter by November 14, 2025.

Ruling

The court found that Roebuck had not submitted a letter responding to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It therefore dismissed the case with prejudice. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims or explain the concerns raised in the defendants’ motion.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Roebuck permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. It also ruled that any pending motions were moot, canceled all conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.