Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 18, 2019

Kraft v. The City of New York

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:19-cv-10286
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kraft v. The City of New York, Judge Furman dismissed the complaint as frivolous, denied injunction relief as moot, and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Warren R. Kraft’s lawsuit was dismissed, his request for injunctive relief was denied as moot, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal. The City of New York and the other defendants were affected by the closing of the case.

What happened

In Kraft v. The City of New York, the court dismissed Warren R. Kraft’s complaint as frivolous under federal law governing certain fee-free lawsuits. The judgment refers to reasons stated in an earlier November 15, 2019 order, which is not included here.

The court denied Kraft’s request for an injunction as moot. It also warned that further vexatious, frivolous, or nonmeritorious litigation could lead to a filing restriction requiring him to obtain permission before bringing new actions.

Judge Jesse Furman’s court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The judgment dismissed the action and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kraft v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-10286
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Nov. 18, 2019

Background

Warren R. Kraft sued The City of New York and other defendants. The judgment states that the court dismissed the complaint for being frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The judgment relies on the court’s November 15, 2019 order for the reasons supporting that dismissal; that earlier order is not provided here.

Rulings

The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous. It denied Kraft’s request for injunctive relief as moot. “Moot” means that the court determined the request no longer presented a live issue.

The court warned that additional vexatious, frivolous, or nonmeritorious litigation could result in an order barring Kraft from filing new actions unless he first received permission. The judgment also states that the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The judgment dismissed the action and closed 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.