Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 17, 2025

Hankerson v. 23 and me

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-01940
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hankerson v. 23 and Me, Chief Judge Swain denied Hankerson’s judge-change motion as unnecessary because the case was closed and denied appeal fee waiver.

Who this affects

Theresa Hankerson’s judge-change motion was denied, and fee-free status for an appeal from this order was denied. The action remains closed.

What happened

In Hankerson v. 23 and Me, the court had already dismissed Theresa Hankerson’s case on May 29, 2024, for failure to state a claim. The case was closed and the judgment was entered that same day.

On December 12, 2024, Hankerson filed a motion asking for a “change” of judge. Because the case was already closed, the court said no further activity would take place and denied the motion as unnecessary. The case remains closed.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hankerson v. 23 and me · No. 1:24-cv-01940
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 17, 2025

Background

The court states that it dismissed Theresa Hankerson’s case on May 29, 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 the same day.

Motion

On December 12, 2024, Hankerson filed a notice of motion requesting a “change” of judge. The opinion does not explain the basis for that request. Because the case was closed, the court stated that no further activity would take place.

Ruling

The court denied Hankerson’s motion as unnecessary. It directed the Clerk to terminate the motion listed at ECF 11, and stated that the action remains closed. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

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.