Patterson v. CPS
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-06461
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Patterson v. CPS, Judge Swain ordered the plaintiffs to correct their fee applications and signature problems before the case can proceed.
Tyron Patterson and the other plaintiff, whose identities and status are not fully specified in the opinion. The order requires both plaintiffs to address the fee applications and requires the second plaintiff to address the missing signature.
What happened
In Patterson v. CPS, Tyron Patterson and another plaintiff brought the action without lawyers. Patterson submitted an application to proceed without paying fees, but left questions unanswered, and the other plaintiff submitted no application.
The court ordered both plaintiffs, within 30 days, either to pay the $405 filing and administrative fees or submit completed applications to proceed without prepayment. The court also said the second plaintiff must add a signature if that person is an adult proceeding without a lawyer. No summons will issue yet.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain stated that failure to correct the application could lead to dismissal without prejudice to refiling, and failure by the second plaintiff to submit the signature page could lead to that plaintiff’s dismissal without prejudice. She also denied fee-free status for an appeal because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Patterson v. CPS · No. 1:25-cv-06461
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 11, 2025
Background
Tyron Patterson and another plaintiff filed this action without lawyers. The court explained that proceeding without prepaying fees requires each plaintiff to submit a signed application to proceed without prepayment of fees, commonly called an IFP application, or to pay $405 in filing and administrative fees.
Patterson submitted an IFP application, but did not answer all the questions. The court therefore could not determine whether he could pay the fees. The other plaintiff did not submit an IFP application.
The caption listed two plaintiffs, but only one person signed the complaint. The court noted that court papers must be personally signed by an unrepresented party. It also said it was unclear whether the second plaintiff was a minor. If that person is a minor, a parent who is not admitted to practice law generally cannot represent the child without a lawyer. If the second plaintiff is an adult who can proceed without a lawyer, that plaintiff must submit the complaint’s signature page again with a signature added in the signature box.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs, within 30 days of August 11, 2025, either to pay the $405 in fees or for each plaintiff to submit a fully completed, signed amended IFP application labeled with docket number 25-CV-6461 (LTS). No summons shall issue at this time.
The order states that if “Plaintiff Tyrone Patterson” does not submit an amended IFP application within the allowed time, the action will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling. The order also states that if the second plaintiff does not submit the complaint’s signature page, that individual will be dismissed without prejudice from the action. The court denied IFP status for an appeal, certifying that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.
Effect of the Order
This is an administrative and filing-related order, not a decision on the underlying claims. The case was not dismissed by this order, but the court required the plaintiffs to correct the identified filing and signature problems before the action can proceed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.