Grimsley v. Nike Corp.

District Court, S.D. New York

Grimsley v. Nike Corp.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBERT GRIMSLEY, Plaintiff, 21-CV-10745 (LTS) -against- ORDER NIKE, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: On February 3, 2022, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice, under

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914

, 1915, because Plaintiff failed to either submit a completed request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP application”) and prisoner authorization or pay the fees required to file a civil action as directed. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration and this Court’s recusal. (ECF 13-16.) By order dated June 6, 2022, the Court denied those motions. (ECF 17.) More than two years later, on August 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to “disqualify and vacate” seeking the same relief. (ECF 18-19.) The Court denied that motion for the same reasons set forth in the June 6, 2022 order. (ECF 20.) On February 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration. (ECF 21.) That motion is denied for the same reasons that the Court has denied the prior motions. (ECF 17, 20.) The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion. (ECF 21.) This matter remains closed. The Court certifies under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States,

369 U.S. 438, 444-45

(1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED. Dated: May 12, 2025 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown