Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 2, 2021

Maldonado v. Westchester County

Docket
7:18-cv-11410
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissPro Se
In one sentence

In Maldonado v. Westchester County, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and closed the case.

Who this affects

Anthony Maldonado, Westchester County, and the other defendants named in the case.

What happened

In Maldonado v. Westchester County, the judgment concerns Anthony Maldonado’s complaint against Westchester County and other defendants. The judgment refers to the complaint as pro se but does not describe its underlying claims.

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. It stated that allowing an amendment would be futile, so it dismissed the complaint with prejudice and closed the case.

The court entered this judgment on February 2, 2021, for the reasons given in a separate memorandum opinion and order. The judge is not identified in the provided judgment; the court issued the ruling.

The detailed version

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

Case
Maldonado v. Westchester County · No. 7:18-cv-11410
Date
Feb. 2, 2021

Background

Anthony Maldonado brought a complaint against Westchester County and other defendants. The provided judgment refers to the complaint as pro se, meaning it was brought without a lawyer. It does not state the complaint’s underlying claims or explain the factual allegations. The judgment says the reasons for the ruling appear in a separate memorandum opinion and order dated February 2, 2021, which was not provided here.

Ruling

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. It stated that district courts often should allow a pro se plaintiff to amend a complaint before dismissal, but that leave to amend is unnecessary when amendment would be futile. The court determined that any amendment would be futile, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and closed the case.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed. The provided judgment does not identify the judge by name; it is signed by Ruby J. Krajick as Clerk of Court, by a deputy clerk.

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.