Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 10, 2025

Grimsley v. Nike Corp.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:21-cv-10745
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Grimsley v. Nike Corp., Chief Judge Swain denied Grimsley’s motion to disqualify and vacate, leaving the matter closed.

Who this affects

Robert Grimsley’s motion was denied, and the matter remains closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims against Nike Corp. or the other defendants.

What happened

In Grimsley v. Nike Corp., the court had previously dismissed the action without prejudice because Robert Grimsley did not submit the required forms or pay the filing fees as directed. The court said the earlier dismissal occurred on February 3, 2022.

More than two years later, Grimsley filed a motion seeking to “disqualify and vacate,” asking for the same relief he had requested in earlier motions. The court denied those earlier motions on June 6, 2022, and said the new motion was denied for the same reasons.

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion and directed the clerk to terminate it. The matter remains closed, and the court denied permission to appeal without paying fees after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Grimsley v. Nike Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-10745
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 10, 2025

Background

The court stated that it dismissed the action without prejudice on February 3, 2022, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. According to the order, Robert Grimsley had failed either to submit a completed request to proceed without paying filing fees and a required prisoner authorization or to pay the fees required to file a civil action, as the court had directed.

Grimsley later moved for reconsideration and for the court’s recusal. The court denied those motions in an order dated June 6, 2022.

Motion at Issue

On August 8, 2024, more than two years after the earlier order, Grimsley filed a motion to “disqualify and vacate.” The court described that motion as seeking the same relief as the earlier motions and stated that it was denying the motion for the reasons given in the June 6, 2022 order.

Ruling

The court denied Grimsley’s motion to “disqualify and vacate” and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. The court stated that the matter remains closed.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.