Grimsley v. Nike Corp.
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-10745
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Grimsley v. Nike Corp.: Judge Swain denied recusal and reconsideration requests after dismissing the complaint for failure to address filing fees.
Robert Grimsley’s requests for recusal and for relief from the dismissal were denied, and the action remains closed. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Grimsley v. Nike Corp., the court had dismissed Robert Grimsley’s complaint without prejudice after he neither paid the $402 filing fee nor submitted an application to proceed without paying and the required prisoner authorization. Grimsley argued that he was not a prisoner because defendants had “kidnaped” him.
Grimsley later asked the judge to step aside and rehear the matter, and sought relief under rules allowing a court to change or set aside a judgment. The court found that its earlier rulings did not show bias, that Grimsley had not identified overlooked law or facts, and that he had not shown a valid reason or extraordinary circumstances for setting aside the judgment.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion to recuse and all other requests for relief. The action remains closed; the court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees and said it would accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The detailed version
- Grimsley v. Nike Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-10745
- Laura Swain
- June 2, 2022
Background
Robert Grimsley’s complaint had been dismissed without prejudice after he failed to comply with an order requiring him either to pay the $402 filing fee or to submit an application to proceed without paying the fee and a prisoner authorization. Grimsley did not complete either option. Instead, he filed several documents, including a motion for relief from the order, a declaration, a letter, a motion to correct the docket, and a civil cover sheet. He asserted that defendants had “kidnaped” him and that he therefore did not qualify as a prisoner.
The court’s February 3, 2022, order dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915 and stated that no further documents would be accepted in the case except documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Grimsley then submitted a letter, a motion “to recuse and rehear,” and a declaration. The court interpreted those submissions as requesting the judge’s recusal, or removal from the case, and as seeking relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b).
Recusal request
The court explained that recusal is required when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Grimsley’s request was based on his disagreement with the court’s earlier rulings about the filing fee and prisoner authorization. The court held that judicial rulings generally are not a valid basis for a claim of judicial bias and denied the recusal request.
Request to alter or amend the judgment
Under Rule 59(e), a party must show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that Grimsley had not made that showing regarding the dismissal for failure to comply with the filing-fee order. It therefore denied his Rule 59(e) motion.
Request for relief from the judgment
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct by an opposing party, or a void judgment. The court found that none of the first five categories applied and denied relief under those provisions. The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which applies only for reasons outside the other categories and requires extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Grimsley had not shown extraordinary circumstances.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Grimsley’s motion “to recuse and rehear,” as well as the requests for relief in his letter and declaration. The action is closed. The Clerk of Court may accept only documents directed to the Second Circuit. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.