Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 24, 2022

Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:21-cv-10503
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority, Judge Woods dismissed all federal claims for failure to state a claim and closed the case.

Who this affects

Robert Mercer’s federal claims were dismissed, any state-law claims he may have asserted were left undecided, and the case was closed. The New York City Housing Authority was the defendant against whom judgment was entered.

What happened

In Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority, the judgment concerns claims Robert Mercer brought against the New York City Housing Authority. The judgment itself does not describe the underlying events or legal theories in the amended complaint.

The court dismissed all federal claims because they failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. It declined to decide any state-law claims Mercer may have asserted.

Judge Woods’s court entered judgment against Mercer and closed the case. It also found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority · No. 1:21-cv-10503
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Mar. 24, 2022

Background

The judgment identifies Robert Mercer as the plaintiff and the New York City Housing Authority as the defendant. It refers to an amended complaint but does not state the factual allegations or identify the specific federal and state-law claims.

Rulings

The court dismissed all federal causes of action asserted in the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The judgment cites 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which permits dismissal during the court’s review of a qualifying complaint when it fails to state a legally sufficient claim.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Mercer may have been asserting. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The judgment cites 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) for that decision.

The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. Judgment was entered against Mercer, and the case was closed.

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.