Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 29, 2025

Roberts v. Waverly Job Center

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-04014
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Roberts v. Waverly Job Center, Judge Swain dismissed the case without prejudice because Roberts filed without required court permission.

Who this affects

Jazmine I. Roberts's case was dismissed without prejudice because she did not obtain the permission required by an earlier court order before filing. The order also denied fee-free status for an appeal.

What happened

In Roberts v. Waverly Job Center, Jazmine I. Roberts filed a new case without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. An earlier court order had barred her from filing new cases without paying fees unless she first obtained permission.

Roberts had not asked for that permission before filing this case. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not permanently bar refiling.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
Roberts v. Waverly Job Center · No. 1:25-cv-04014
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 29, 2025

Background

On January 2, 2025, the court entered an order barring Jazmine I. Roberts from filing any new action without paying filing fees unless she first obtained the court's permission. The opinion refers to that earlier order as arising in a prior related proceeding.

Roberts then filed this new case against Waverly Job Center and other defendants. She was representing herself, requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and had not obtained the required permission before filing.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because Roberts failed to comply with the January 2, 2025 order. The opinion does not address the merits of the claims.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Roberts a copy of the order, note service on the docket, and enter judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.