Opinion

Brown v. National Basketball Association (NBA)

Court
District Court, S.D. New York
Filed
Dec 30, 2019
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 27.0%

holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue

How later courts described this case

  • holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KIMBERLY BERNICE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

-against- 1:19-cv-6434-GHW

NATIONAL BASKETBALL ORDER

ASSOCIATION; TAMERA YOUNG, WBNA

Athlete,

Defendants.

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

On December 26, 2019, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims and denied as moot

all outstanding motions and requests for relief. Dkt. No. 14. That same day, Plaintiff wrote the

Court, requesting a jury trial and alleging additional facts that occurred after she filed her Second

Amended Complaint. See Dkt. No. 15. Although the Court has already dismissed this action,

Plaintiff’s letter was filed after the Court’s order was docketed, so the Court separately addresses

the issues raised by Plaintiff’s letter.

The Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66,

72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,”

Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted, emphasis in original). Still, for the reasons stated in the Court’s December

26, 2019 opinion, this motion is denied as moot. Because Plaintiff’s claims have been dismissed,

she is not entitled to a jury trial. Further, the additional facts Plaintiff alleges—namely, that she

has “received multiple threatening calls on a daily basis from various unknown numbers”—do

not, even if true, state a plausible claim for relief against the NBA, nor do they cure Plaintiff’s

failure to bring her claims against Young in the appropriate venue.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would

not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an

appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant

demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on

the docket.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2019

New York, New York Lo a

GREGORY. WOODS

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.