Johnson v. Ashong
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-04719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Johnson v. Ashong, Judge Swain ordered a pro se plaintiff to provide an original complaint signature within 30 days.
David Johnson, who must provide an original signature for the case to proceed, and the defendants, because no summons will issue unless he complies.
What happened
In Johnson v. Ashong, David Johnson filed a complaint without a signature. The court explained that an unrepresented party must personally sign a pleading under federal and local court rules.
The court ordered Johnson to submit the complaint’s signature page with an original signature within 30 days. The court will not issue a summons yet; if Johnson complies, the Clerk’s Office will process the case, but if he does not, the action will be dismissed.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order. She also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal fee.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Ashong · No. 1:25-cv-04719
- John Cronan
- June 10, 2025
Background
David Johnson brought this action without a lawyer. He submitted the complaint without a signature. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and Local Civil Rule 11.1(a), which require a pleading to be signed by an attorney or, when a party is unrepresented, by that party personally. The court explained that the signature must be handwritten or another mark placed by hand.
Order
The court directed Johnson to submit the complaint’s signature page bearing an original signature within 30 days of the order. A copy of the signature page was attached. No summons will issue at this time. If Johnson complies, the case will be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he fails to comply within the allowed time, the action will be dismissed.
Appeal determination
Chief 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. The court therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the required fee for an appeal. This order addresses the missing signature and case-processing requirements; it does not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.