Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 17, 2025

Williams v. Department of Corrections

Full caption

Akeem Williams v. Department of Corrections, et al.; Shane Campbell v. Department of Corrections, et al.; Erick Castillo v. Department of Corrections, et al.; Lawshawn Delima v. Department of Corrections, et al.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-09107
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Akeem Williams v. Department of Corrections and related cases, Judge Swain ordered 27 incarcerated plaintiffs to sign papers and pay fees or seek permission to proceed without prepayment.

Who this affects

The 27 incarcerated plaintiffs whose claims were separated into newly opened civil actions, including Akeem Williams, Shane Campbell, Erick Castillo, and Lawshawn Delima.

What happened

Akeem Williams v. Department of Corrections and related cases involves 27 incarcerated plaintiffs whose claims were separated from a pending related civil action and placed into new, individual cases. None had signed the original complaint or paid the required fees or submitted applications to proceed without prepayment.

The court gave each plaintiff 30 days to submit an original signature page labeled with the correct case number. Each plaintiff also had to either pay $405 in filing and administrative fees or submit a completed and signed application to proceed without prepayment and a prisoner authorization. The court stated that it would dismiss any plaintiff’s action if that plaintiff failed to comply.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal from the order would not be considered to have been taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying appeal fees. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Williams v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:25-cv-09107
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Nov. 17, 2025

Background

The court had previously separated the claims of 27 plaintiffs, other than the plaintiff who remained in the pending related action, and directed the Clerk of Court to open a separate civil action for each plaintiff. The 27 plaintiffs were incarcerated and proceeding without lawyers. The Clerk opened the new actions and filed copies of the original complaint and the earlier order in each action.

Signature requirement

None of the 27 plaintiffs had signed the complaint that began the earlier action. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires an unrepresented party to personally sign a pleading or other filing. The court therefore ordered each plaintiff to sign the attached complaint signature page with an original signature, write the docket number for that plaintiff’s newly opened case on the page, and submit the page within 30 days of the order. The court required one signature page from each plaintiff. It stated that failure to comply within the allowed time would result in dismissal of that plaintiff’s action.

Fees or request to proceed without prepayment

The court explained that a prisoner bringing a civil action must either pay $405 in fees or request permission to proceed without prepaying the fees. The $405 consists of a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee. To make that request, each plaintiff had to complete, sign, and submit an application to proceed without prepayment and a prisoner authorization.

The court explained that, if permission is granted, the $350 filing fee must be collected in installments from the prisoner’s facility trust-fund account. The prisoner authorization permits those deductions and requires submission of certified account statements for the previous six months. The $55 administrative fee does not apply to a person granted permission to proceed without prepayment.

None of the 27 plaintiffs had paid the fees or submitted the required forms. The court ordered each plaintiff, within 30 days of the order, to do one or the other. The forms had to identify the docket number for the plaintiff’s corresponding action. The court again stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal of that plaintiff’s action.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed each of the 27 plaintiffs to comply with the signature and payment-or-application requirements within 30 days. The court did not rule on the merits of any plaintiff’s claims. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The court also cautioned that a later dismissal for maliciousness, frivolousness, or failure to state a claim could count as a statutory “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-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.