Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 2, 2025

Hankerson v. 125 Worth St. Department of Health Vital Records

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-01148
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Hankerson v. 125 Worth St. Department of Health Vital Records, Judge Swain denied a judge-change motion because the case was already closed.

Who this affects

Theresa Hankerson’s judge-change motion was denied, and the case remains closed. The court also denied her permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

What happened

In Hankerson v. 125 Worth St. Department of Health Vital Records, the court had dismissed Theresa Hankerson’s case for failure to state a claim, and the case was closed after judgment was entered.

Hankerson later filed a motion asking for a “change” of judge. The court said no further activity could occur because the case was closed.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion as unnecessary, directed the Clerk to terminate it, and kept the case closed. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hankerson v. 125 Worth St. Department of Health Vital Records · No. 1:24-cv-01148
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 2, 2025

Background

The court had dismissed Theresa Hankerson’s case on June 5, 2024, for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk entered judgment and terminated the case on June 12, 2024.

Motion

On December 12, 2024, Hankerson filed a motion requesting a “change” of judge. The opinion does not further explain what specific change she requested.

Ruling

Because the case was closed, the court stated that no further activity would take place. Judge Laura Taylor Swain therefore denied Hankerson’s motion as unnecessary and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF 14. The action remains closed.

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

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.