Charles v. Excess Telecom
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-09181
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Charles v. Excess Telecom, Judge Swain ordered a pro se plaintiff to submit an original signature within 30 days or face dismissal.
Nicolas Alexander Napoleon Charles, who filed without a lawyer, must provide an original signature to continue the action; Excess Telecom is the named defendant.
What happened
In Charles v. Excess Telecom, Nicolas Alexander Napoleon Charles filed a complaint without signing it. The court explained that an unrepresented party must personally sign court papers.
The court ordered Charles to send the complaint’s signature page with an original handwritten signature within 30 days. No summons will issue for now, and the case will be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures if he complies; if he does not, the action will be dismissed.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees.
The detailed version
- Charles v. Excess Telecom · No. 1:24-cv-09181
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 22, 2025
Background
Nicolas Alexander Napoleon Charles brought the action without a lawyer. He submitted the complaint without a signature.
Court’s Order
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires every pleading, written motion, and other court paper to be signed by an attorney or, when a party is unrepresented, by that party personally. The court cited Supreme Court precedent explaining that the signature must be handwritten or a handplaced mark.
The court directed Charles to resubmit the complaint’s signature page with an original signature within 30 days of the order. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Charles complies, the case will be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he does not comply within the allowed time, the action will be dismissed.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees for that appeal.
Disposition
The court issued an order directing an original signature and did not issue a summons at that time. The opinion does not state that the action had already been dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.