Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 24, 2025

Rogers v. VICP

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-02343
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Rogers v. VICP: Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Rogers did not submit the required original signature page.

Who this affects

Joshua Rogers's complaint against VICP was dismissed without prejudice; the order also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.

What happened

In Rogers v. VICP, the court had ordered Joshua Rogers to resubmit the signature page of his application to proceed without paying filing fees, with an original signature, within 30 days.

Rogers did not submit the signed page. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for the appeal. The order did not decide the complaint's underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rogers v. VICP · No. 1:25-cv-02343
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 24, 2025

Background

On May 7, 2025, the court directed Joshua Rogers to resubmit the signature page of his application to proceed without paying filing fees. The court required an original signature and warned that failing to comply within 30 days would result in dismissal of the complaint.

Court's ruling

Rogers did not submit the signed signature page. Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

Appeal-related ruling

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 permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not address the merits of Rogers's claims.

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.