Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 16, 2020

Washington-Steele v. City of New York

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:18-cv-07431
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Washington-Steele v. City of New York, Judge Abrams granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, closing the case.

Who this affects

The judgment affects plaintiff Zahmiel D. Washington-Steele and defendants City of New York and NYC Detective Paul Scott, Shield #6880. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, and the case was closed.

What happened

Washington-Steele v. City of New York involved Zahmiel D. Washington-Steele’s case against the City of New York and Detective Paul Scott.

The court’s judgment says the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The case was closed.

Judge Ronnie Abrams’s judgment relied on reasons stated in a separate memorandum and order dated July 16, 2020; those reasons are not included in the provided text.

The detailed version

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

Case
Washington-Steele v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-07431
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
July 16, 2020

Background

The caption identifies Zahmiel D. Washington-Steele as the plaintiff and the City of New York and NYC Detective Paul Scott, Shield #6880, as the defendants. The provided text is a judgment and does not describe the underlying claims or facts.

Ruling

The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s memorandum opinion and order dated July 16, 2020, the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice pursuant to Amaker v. Weiner. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling. The judgment also states that the case was closed.

Limits of the Provided Text

The judgment does not identify the legal grounds for dismissal, explain whether particular claims were dismissed, or provide the court’s reasoning beyond referring to the separate memorandum opinion and order.

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.