# Brown v. National Basketball Association (NBA)

> District Court, S.D. New York · December 30, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10319661

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** December 30, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10319661

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

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

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10319661. Public record. Not legal advice.