UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff, -against- 24 CIVIL 5322 (JMF) JUDGMENT MENDOZA JADDOU, et al., Defendants. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED): That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated November 6, 2024, Defendant’s motion papers, the motion is GRANTED and the case is dismissed substantially for the reasons stated in Defendant’s memorandum of law, namely that the action is moot and the Court therefore lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See ECF No. 15. Additionally, while leave to amend a complaint should be freely given “when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), it is “within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend.” McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.,

(2d Cir. 2007). Although courts should generally grant pro se plaintiffs leave to amend “at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated,” Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank,

(2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted), the Court declines to grant such leave here because amendment would be futile, see Cuoco v. Moritsugu,

(2d Cir. 2000); accordingly, the case is closed. Dated: New York, New York November 7, 2024

DANIEL ORTIZ Acting Clerk of Court BY: K MANGO ‘Deputy Clerk