Gilliam v. NFL
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-01846
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Gilliam v. NFL: Judge Swain dismissed Gilliam’s complaint as frivolous because it did not connect alleged events to NFL or Goodell.
Derrek Gilliam’s action against the NFL and Roger Goodell was dismissed as frivolous. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Gilliam v. NFL, Derrek Gilliam sued the NFL and Roger Goodell under New York criminal statutes. He also referred to alleged incidents involving insurance fraud, child pornography, confinement, dental work, threats, social media, and employment, but did not clearly explain how the defendants caused him harm.
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous after finding that the allegations were irrational, lacked a factual connection to the defendants, and presented no workable legal theory. The court also declined to allow Gilliam to amend the complaint because it found that the defects could not be fixed.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Gilliam’s permission to proceed without paying appeal fees was denied.
The detailed version
- Gilliam v. NFL · No. 1:23-cv-01846
- Laura Swain
- June 12, 2023
Background
Derrek Gilliam appeared without a lawyer and sued the National Football League and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. He said the case arose under New York criminal statutes and invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Gilliam’s complaint and a later letter referred to numerous alleged events, including insurance fraud, child pornography, involuntary servitude, false imprisonment, social-media interference, dental work, threats, assaults, COVID-19 transmission, homelessness, and employment problems. The complaint also mentioned Tom Brady. The opinion states that Gilliam did not clearly connect the alleged harm to conduct by the NFL or Goodell.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the court must dismiss a complaint filed by a person allowed to proceed without paying fees if it is frivolous. A frivolous claim has no arguable legal or factual basis. The court must read a self-represented person’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still must provide a short and understandable statement showing entitlement to relief.
The court concluded that Gilliam’s claims were irrational, that the alleged incidents were presented in a fragmented manner, and that many did not appear connected to the named defendants. It found no factual basis or viable legal theory supporting a claim against the NFL or Goodell. The court therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Disposition
The court declined to give Gilliam permission to amend because it found that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.