Rogers v. Price
- Louis Stanton
- 1:25-cv-01972
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Rogers v. Price was dismissed because its amended complaint lacked clear claims and supporting facts; Judge Stanton kept an existing warning about future fee-free filings in effect.
Joshua Rogers’s amended complaint was dismissed, and his request to amend again was denied. The existing warning about possible restrictions on his future fee-free filings in the Southern District of New York remains in effect. The defendants are affected because the action was terminated by dismissal.
What happened
In Rogers v. Price, Joshua Rogers, representing himself, filed an amended complaint about alleged events involving an apartment complex, his brother, and other defendants. The opinion says the complaint did not identify specific legal claims or explain why the Southern District of New York had authority to hear them.
The court found that the complaint did not give New Amsterdam Property fair notice of the claims or the reasons for them, and it alleged no facts involving Piers McMahon or CASA. The court also said the alleged conduct occurred in New Jersey and that any proper federal case might belong in the District of New Jersey.
The court dismissed the amended complaint, denied permission to amend because it would be futile, and directed entry of a civil judgment. Judge Louis L. Stanton also kept in effect an earlier warning that Rogers might be required to obtain permission before filing future complaints without paying fees in this court.
The detailed version
- Rogers v. Price · No. 1:25-cv-01972
- Louis Stanton
- July 29, 2025
Background
Joshua Rogers, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, filed an amended complaint against Piers McMahon, CASA, and New Amsterdam Property. The opinion says Rogers did not identify whether he was invoking federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, and he did not state specific causes of action.
Rogers alleged that he had started a sexual-harassment case in 2016, that his shareholders purchased his building in 2019 as part of a settlement agreement, and that a superintendent later locked him out of his unit. He also alleged that belongings and documents were taken, that his brother and his brother’s children were assaulted, and that Rogers contracted orthopox from an apartment. The court quoted these allegations from the amended complaint without adopting them as true beyond the pleading review.
Reasons for dismissal
Because Rogers had been allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks authority to exercise jurisdiction.
The court held that the amended complaint failed to satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short and plain statement giving each defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds for it. The allegations concerning New Amsterdam Property appeared to involve Rogers’s and his brother’s residency at a New Jersey apartment complex, but they did not clearly identify the claims or their legal basis. Rogers also did not explain why the Southern District of New York had jurisdiction. The complaint alleged no facts involving McMahon or CASA. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Leave to amend and warning
The court denied Rogers permission to amend again because it found amendment would be futile. It stated that the alleged conduct occurred in New Jersey and that, if any federal district court could exercise jurisdiction over a claim Rogers might be asserting, it would be the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The court also stated that Rogers had filed at least eleven self-represented cases in the Southern District of New York during 2024 and 2025. An earlier warning that continued abuse of the privilege of filing without prepaying fees could lead to a requirement that Rogers obtain permission before filing such complaints in that court remained in effect.
Disposition
The court dismissed Rogers’s amended complaint under § 1915, denied leave to amend, ordered the Clerk of Court to enter a civil judgment, and kept the prior filing warning in effect. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.