Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 12, 2024

Roberts v. The Guidance Center of Westchester

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:20-cv-08409
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Roberts v. The Guidance Center, Judge Swain declined to address an emailed reconsideration request, directed filing through the proper unit, and denied appeal fee waiver.

Who this affects

Jazmine Roberts, who appeared without a lawyer. The order set the required procedure for any reconsideration request and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

What happened

In Roberts v. The Guidance Center of Westchester, Jazmine Roberts, appearing without a lawyer, sued numerous defendants and alleged that they violated her rights. The court dismissed the action in 2021 for failure to state a claim, gave her time to file a valid amended complaint, and later dismissed the action after she did not file one. The Court of Appeals later dismissed her appeal.

Roberts emailed the judge’s chambers in June 2024 seeking reconsideration. The court declined to substantively address that request because it was not filed as a motion through the required filing unit. The court directed Roberts not to contact chambers and explained how to submit a reconsideration motion. It also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the June 12, 2024 order. She certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Roberts v. The Guidance Center of Westchester · No. 1:20-cv-08409
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 12, 2024

Background

Jazmine Roberts, appearing without a lawyer, brought this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and alleged that the defendants violated her rights. In 2021, the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim but allowed Roberts 60 days to file a second amended complaint asserting valid claims against municipalities. Roberts did not file that complaint, and the court later entered judgment dismissing the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Roberts appealed. On April 11, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal, stating that it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.

Request for Reconsideration

On June 5, 2024, Roberts emailed the court’s chambers seeking reconsideration of the dismissal. The court declined to substantively address the request because Roberts had not filed a motion through the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. The court directed her not to contact chambers and explained that any reconsideration motion had to be mailed or submitted in person to that unit.

Disposition

The court declined to substantively address Roberts’s request for reconsideration. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not state that a properly filed reconsideration motion was denied.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.