Hawks v. Nike Inc. et al
| Maurice Hawks |
| Nike Inc., Kicks on Fire, Nice Kicks, Chicago Bulls and Michael Jordan |
| 1:2025cv12689 |
| October 17, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Sharon Johnson Coleman |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 24, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 19 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Plaintiff's affidavit accompanying motion for permission to appeal in forma pauperis #14 is granted. Mailed notice. (ym) |
| Filing 18 EXHIBITS by Plaintiff Maurice Hawks regarding notice of appeal #13 (Received at the Intake Counter on 1/9/26.) (bi,) |
| Filing 17 ACKNOWLEDGMENT of receipt of short record on appeal regarding notice of appeal #13 ; USCA Case No. 25-3351 (bi,) |
| Filing 16 TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal #13 . Notified counsel. (bi,) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record regarding notice of appeal #13 (bi,) |
| Filing 14 AFFIDAVIT accompanying motion for permission to appeal in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Maurice Hawks for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Received at the intake counter on 12/30/25). (bi,) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE of appeal by Maurice Hawks regarding orders #8 , #9 , #12 (Received at the intake counter on 12/30/25). (bi,) |
| Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment #10 . "[R]elief from a judgment under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy and is granted only in exceptional circumstances." Bakery Mach. & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff claims that his previous statement--that he became aware of the existence of his claims ten years ago--was mistaken due to his medical impairment. Even if his statement was inaccurate, that would not rise to an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief under Rule 60(b), and his claims would remain time-barred. In this circuit "[a] plaintiff's action accrues when he discovers that he has been injured, not when he determines that the injury was unlawful." Thelen v. Marc's Big Boy Corp., 64 F.3d 264, 267 (7th Cir. 1995). Illinois law similarly provides that the relevant statute of limitations may be postponed until an injured plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that he has been injured and that the injury was wrongfully caused. See Golla v. Gen. Motors Corp., 657 N.E.2d 894, 898 (Ill. 1995). Plaintiff's claims accrued at the time of his injury, and the limitations period for his injury (the alleged use of his likeness) began to run when his likeness "was first published." See Toth-Gray v. Lamp Liter, Inc., No. 19-cv-1327, 2019 WL 3555179, at *4 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2019) (applying Illinois law to determine limitations period). In sum, the relevant point in time was not when Plaintiff became aware of the legal rights he may possess in connection with the alleged events, but the time those events occurred. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion. Mailed notice. (ym) |
| Filing 11 RECEIVED PROPOSED ORDER by Maurice Hawks (Received at the Intake Counter on 12/2/25.) (bi,) |
| Filing 10 MOTION by Plaintiff Maurice Hawks for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) (Exhibits) (Received at the Intake Counter on 12/1/25.) (bi,) |
| Filing 9 ENTERED JUDGMENT. Mailed notice. (ym) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Pro se plaintiff Maurice Hawks brings this lawsuit against Nike, Inc., Michael Jordan, and numerous other defendants (together, "Defendants") claiming that Defendants unfairly profited from the use of his image and likeness. Plaintiff alleges that he was used as a body double for Michael Jordan in a 1985 Nike commercial, but was never compensated or otherwise acknowledged for his contribution to Defendants' commercial success. The Court must look beyond a pro se plaintiff's financial status and review his claims to determine whether the action he alleges is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks damages from a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007) (grounds for sua sponte dismissal set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)). As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff's initial complaint was a letter which did not contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction" as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1). (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint which did comply with Rule 8(a). (Dkt. 6.) At this stage, Plaintiff is permitted to amend his complaint once as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). The Court therefore treats Plaintiff's most recently filed complaint as the operative pleading for the purpose of determining whether his case may proceed. Plaintiff brings his claims against Defendants forty years after the alleged exploitation of Plaintiff's likeness began. Moreover, at the hearing before the Court on November 3, 2025, Plaintiff stated he became aware ten years ago that his asserted causes of action existed. None of the statutes of limitations for Plaintiff's claims extend so far. Plaintiff also admitted at the November 3 hearing that there is no written documentation of any agreement that would prove his rights to any compensation or royalties, or extend the time period for which he may bring claims. Because Plaintiff filed his complaint well outside the limitation periods for his claims, his case cannot move forward. The Court also declines to apply equitable tolling, an "extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted." Carpenter v. Douma, 840 F.3d 867, 870 (7th Cir. 2016). To invoke equitable tolling, a plaintiff "must bring suit within a reasonable time after he has obtained, or by due diligence could have obtained, the necessary information." Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 453 (7th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff failed to do so. Therefore, the Court must sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. #6 Because the Court's dismissal is on statute of limitations grounds, there is no "practical distinction" here between a dismissal with prejudice and a dismissal without prejudice "because, even if the court dismissed without prejudice, refiling would be futile." David v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 2344576, at *3 (N.D. Ill. 2016), aff'd, 669 F. App'x 793 (7th Cir. 2016). The Court nevertheless dismisses Plaintiff's claim with prejudice because any amendment would be "barred by the statute of limitations." Rodriguez v. United States, 286 F.3d 972, 980 (7th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is accordingly denied as moot. #4 The plaintiff is free to follow up with the Hibbler Help Desk for further explanation of this Court's ruling. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (ym) |
| ***Civil Case Terminated. (ym, ) |
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Motion hearing held on 11/3/2025. Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #4 is taken under advisement. The Court will review plaintiff's complaint to determine if appropriate and will enter an order. Mailed notice. (ym) |
| Filing 6 EXHIBITS by Plaintiff Maurice Hawks (Received at the Intake Counter on 10/21/25.) (bi,) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman. Presentment of Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #4 is set for 11/3/2025 at 10:15 AM as an in-person hearing in courtroom 1241. Mailed notice. (ym) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Maurice Hawks for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Received at the Intake Counter on 10/17/25) (vkm, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Maurice Hawks. (Received at the Intake Counter on 10/17/25) (vkm, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (Received at the Intake Counter on 10/17/25) (vkm, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Maurice Hawks. (Received at the Intake Counter on 10/17/25) (vkm, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (vkm, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). (vkm, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
