Singleton v. New York City Police Department
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-09699
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Singleton v. New York City Police Department, Judge McMahon ordered pro se plaintiff Aaron Singleton to submit a signed authorization within 30 days or face dismissal.
Aaron Singleton, who was proceeding without a lawyer; the action against the New York City Police Department and the other named defendants was not dismissed at that time.
What happened
In Singleton v. New York City Police Department, Aaron Singleton brought the action without a lawyer and submitted a prisoner authorization without a signature.
The court explained that federal and local rules require an unrepresented party to personally sign court papers. It directed Singleton to submit the authorization again with an original signature within 30 days.
Judge McMahon ordered that no summons issue yet and said the case would proceed if Singleton complied, but would be dismissed if he did not. The court also denied fee-free appeal status for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Singleton v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:20-cv-09699
- Louis Stanton
- Dec. 16, 2020
Background
Aaron Singleton brought this action without a lawyer. He submitted a prisoner authorization without a signature.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and Local Civil Rule 11.1(a) require an unrepresented party to sign court papers personally. The court stated that the signature must be handwritten or a mark placed by hand.
Order
The court directed Singleton to resubmit his prisoner authorization with an original signature within 30 days of the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail him the order and record service on the docket. No summons was to issue at that time. The court stated that the action would be processed under the Clerk’s procedures if Singleton complied, and that the action would be dismissed if he failed to comply within the allowed period.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.
Disposition
The order directed Singleton to correct the missing original signature; it did not dismiss the action at that time.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.