Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 30, 2020

Schneider v. Mahopac Central School District

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:20-cv-00709
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Schneider v. Mahopac Central School District, Judge Seibel ordered pro se plaintiff Schneider to submit an original complaint signature within 30 days.

Who this affects

Jonathan Schneider, who was ordered to provide an original signature and was warned that the action will be dismissed if he does not comply; any appeal from the order cannot proceed without prepayment of fees.

What happened

In Schneider v. Mahopac Central School District, Jonathan Schneider filed the case without a lawyer, but his complaint did not include his handwritten signature.

The court ordered Schneider to resubmit the complaint’s signature page with an original signature within 30 days. The court warned that the case will be dismissed if he does not comply.

Judge Seibel also ruled that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Schneider permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Schneider v. Mahopac Central School District · No. 7:20-cv-00709
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
Jan. 30, 2020

Background

Jonathan Schneider brought this action without a lawyer. The complaint was submitted without a signature. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and Local Civil Rule 11.1(a), which require an unrepresented party to sign a pleading personally. The opinion does not address the substance of Schneider’s claims.

Order

The court directed Schneider to resubmit the complaint’s signature page with an original signature within 30 days of the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to send him a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The court stated that the action will be dismissed if Schneider fails to comply within the allowed time.

Appeal and disposition

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 appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not dismiss the action at that time; it directed Schneider to correct the missing signature and warned of dismissal for noncompliance.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.