Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 11, 2022

Brown v. National Basketball Association

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:19-cv-06434
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Brown v. NBA, Judge Woods stopped reviewing improper emails and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Kimberly Bernice Brown is affected because the court will not review or consider future emails she sends to the chambers inbox and denied her permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order also directs that a copy be mailed to Brown and the defendants.

What happened

In Brown v. National Basketball Association (NBA), Kimberly Bernice Brown repeatedly emailed the court’s chambers inbox even after being told to use the Southern District of New York’s pro se filing methods and office.

The court said it would no longer review or consider emails Brown sent to the chambers inbox. It had previously posted her communications to the case docket.

Judge Gregory H. Woods also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Brown permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Brown and the defendants.

The detailed version

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

Case
Brown v. National Basketball Association · No. 1:19-cv-06434
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Apr. 11, 2022

Background

The court had ordered Kimberly Bernice Brown to stop emailing the court’s chambers inbox and to use the filing methods identified on the Southern District of New York’s website for people representing themselves. Earlier orders had also directed her to communicate through the court’s pro se office. Despite those instructions, Brown emailed the chambers inbox at least eleven times after the court’s March 27, 2022 order.

Order

The court stated that it had posted Brown’s communications to the docket but would no longer review or consider emails she sent to the chambers inbox. This order addressed how Brown could communicate with the court; it did not decide the underlying claims against the National Basketball Association or Tamera Young.

Appeal and service

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Brown permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Brown and the defendants by first-class and certified mail and record service on the docket.

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.