Rogers v. Rogers
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00288
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rogers v. Rogers, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Joshua Rogers neither paid filing fees nor submitted an IFP application.
Joshua Rogers, whose complaint was dismissed without prejudice; the opinion does not decide the underlying claims involving Jonathan Rogers or Tiberius Chrishlom Stryker.
What happened
In Rogers v. Rogers, the court ordered Joshua Rogers to either submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees or pay the $405 required to file a civil case. The court warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal.
Joshua Rogers did neither. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court also directed the clerk to enter judgment.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain further ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal fees. The order did not decide the claims against Jonathan Rogers or Tiberius Chrishlom Stryker.
The detailed version
- Rogers v. Rogers · No. 1:25-cv-00288
- Laura Swain
- June 9, 2025
Background
By an order dated March 19, 2025, the court directed Joshua Rogers to submit a completed application to proceed without paying filing fees, commonly called an IFP application, or to pay the $405 filing fee required for a civil action. The court warned that failing to comply within 30 days would result in dismissal of the complaint.
Ruling
Joshua Rogers did not submit an IFP application and did not pay the filing fee. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The opinion does not resolve the underlying claims against Jonathan Rogers or Tiberius Chrishlom Stryker.
The court 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 IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The court also directed the clerk to enter judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.