Manchanda v. Reardon
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-09292
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Manchanda v. Reardon, Judge Cronan dismissed federal claims without prejudice only where jurisdiction was lacking, dismissed state claims, denied amendment, and closed the case.
Rahul Manchanda’s federal and state-law claims were dismissed as specified in the judgment; the listed defendants received judgment in their favor, and the case was closed.
What happened
Manchanda v. Reardon involved Rahul Manchanda’s amended complaint against the listed defendants. The judgment states that Manchanda had filed the case without a lawyer and that the amended complaint lacked merit and included offensive and anti-Semitic accusations.
The court dismissed Manchanda’s federal claims on its own initiative, without prejudice only to the extent the court lacked authority to hear them. It declined to hear the related state-law claims and dismissed those claims. The court also denied Manchanda permission to file another amended complaint.
Judge Cronan’s court entered judgment for the defendants and closed the case. The judgment was dated February 1, 2024, and says the reasons for the rulings appear in a separate opinion and order.
The detailed version
- Manchanda v. Reardon · No. 1:23-cv-09292
- John Cronan
- Feb. 1, 2024
Background
Rahul Manchanda sued the Attorney Grievance Committee Chief Abigail Reardon, Staff Attorney Remi Shea, Chief Counsel Jorge Dopico, Judge Rolando Acosta, the New York City Police Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s New York City field office. The judgment states that Manchanda proceeded without a lawyer and that he had filed at least fifteen civil actions in the district since 2012. It also states that his amended complaint was without merit and contained offensive and anti-Semitic accusations.
Claims and ruling
The judgment identifies four federal causes of action and five state-law causes of action. The court dismissed the federal claims on its own initiative. It specified that the federal-claim dismissal was without prejudice only to the extent the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to decide those claims.
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over the Fifth through Ninth Causes of Action and dismissed those claims. It also denied Manchanda leave to amend the amended complaint. The judgment entered in favor of the defendants and closed the case.
Scope of the available text
The provided text is the judgment and refers to a separate Opinion and Order for the detailed reasons. That separate reasoning is not included here, so the specific basis for each federal-claim ruling cannot be determined from the provided text alone.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.