Rogers v. VICP
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-02343
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rogers v. VICP, Judge Swain ordered pro se plaintiff Joshua Rogers to sign his application within 30 days or face dismissal without prejudice.
Joshua Rogers, who must submit the required signature page within 30 days to avoid dismissal without prejudice of the action.
What happened
Rogers v. VICP is an action brought by Joshua Rogers, who is representing himself. His application to proceed without a lawyer's signature was unsigned.
The court directed Rogers to sign and return the attached signature page within 30 days. No summons or answer will issue yet. If he complies, the Clerk's Office will process the case; if he does not, the action will be dismissed without prejudice.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Rogers v. VICP · No. 1:25-cv-02343
- Laura Swain
- May 7, 2025
Background
Joshua Rogers filed this action without a lawyer. His application to proceed without paying the required filing fee was unsigned. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), which requires an unrepresented party to sign pleadings, motions, and other papers personally.
Order
The court directed Rogers to sign and submit the attached signature page within 30 days of the order. It stated that no summons or answer would issue at that time. If Rogers complies, the case will be processed under the Clerk's Office procedures. If he does not comply within the allowed period, the action will be dismissed without prejudice, meaning the order does not bar a later filing on that basis.
Appeal and disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The order addressed the unsigned application and filing requirements; it did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.