Rogers v. Target Corp.
- Louis Stanton
- 1:24-cv-07883
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Rogers v. Target Corp., Judge Swain dismissed Joshua Rogers’s complaint for unclear pleading but allowed 30 days to refile.
Joshua Rogers’s complaint against Target Corp. was dismissed, but Rogers may file an amended complaint within 30 days. The order also denies fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Rogers v. Target Corp., Joshua Rogers, representing himself, sued Target Corp. He did not identify whether federal-question or diversity jurisdiction applied, did not state specific legal claims, and alleged only that Target’s loss-prevention personnel allowed a rumor to affect their judgment. His other allegations concerned medical issues and other events that the court found appeared unrelated to Target.
The court dismissed the complaint because it did not give Target fair notice of the claims or explain the legal basis for them. The dismissal was made under the federal law governing complaints filed without prepaying filing fees, and Rogers was given 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order. The case remains open temporarily while the clerk waits for an amended complaint; if Rogers does not file one within the allowed time, the court will direct entry of judgment dismissing the action.
The detailed version
- Rogers v. Target Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-07883
- Louis Stanton
- Mar. 5, 2025
Background
Joshua Rogers, who was representing himself, filed a complaint against Target Corp. without stating whether federal-question jurisdiction or diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction supported the case. He also did not identify specific legal claims. Rogers alleged that Target’s loss-prevention personnel allowed a rumor to affect their judgment. The complaint also included allegations about orthopox, shoplifting in New York City, being killed by an employee through “incest,” and receiving a fatal shot at Bellevue Hospital. The court stated that these allegations appeared unrelated to any claim against Target, the only named defendant. Rogers requested a whole-head transplant procedure, lifetime insurance, the ability to be revived, artificial insemination for a first child, and $400 million in damages.
Court’s analysis
Because Rogers was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen his complaint. The court explained that it must dismiss such a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or does not fall within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally, but they must still comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court held that Rogers’s complaint did not meet that requirement. The allegation about Target’s loss-prevention personnel did not give Target fair notice of what claim Rogers was asserting or the grounds for that claim. The complaint also did not identify the legal basis for the claims or explain why the federal court had jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which concerns failure to state a claim in a complaint filed without prepaying fees, and granted Rogers 30 days’ leave to replead his claims in an amended complaint. The order did not decide whether Target was liable on the underlying allegations. If Rogers does not file an amended complaint within the permitted period, the court will direct the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action.
The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Rogers permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The court directed the clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.