Jamel Washington v. New York City, et al.
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01246
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Washington v. New York City: Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Washington did not submit the required original signature page.
Jamel Washington’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice; the defendants were not otherwise addressed in the opinion.
What happened
In Jamel Washington v. New York City, the court had ordered Washington to resubmit the complaint’s signature page with an original signature within thirty days.
Washington did not submit the signed page, so the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the federal rule requiring a party’s signature. The court also said Washington could appeal without paying fees only if the appeal was taken in good faith, and denied that status for an appeal.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The opinion says the filing fee had not been charged because the court had not yet approved Washington’s request to proceed without paying it.
The detailed version
- Jamel Washington v. New York City, et al. · No. 1:25-cv-01246
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 3, 2025
Background
The court had previously ordered Jamel Washington to resubmit the signature page of his complaint with an original signature within thirty days. The earlier order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
Ruling
Washington did not submit the signed signature page. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the opinion did not bar a later filing on that basis. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), which addresses required signatures on court filings.
The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Washington permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.
Additional detail
The court stated that it had not yet granted Washington’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee, so the $350 filing fee had not been charged.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.