Roe v. Data Advantage Group, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-01397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Roe v. Data Advantage Group, Inc., Judge Swain dismissed John Roe’s case, denied fee-waiver status, and required him to explain why future filings should not need permission.
John Roe’s case was dismissed, and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were dismissed from the action without prejudice. John Roe was also required to respond to a proposed restriction on future filings.
What happened
Roe v. Data Advantage Group, Inc. involved John Roe’s attempt to bring an employment-discrimination case for himself and two other plaintiffs using pseudonyms. He filed without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court said John Roe could not represent the other plaintiffs because he is not a lawyer, and it dismissed Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 without prejudice. The court also denied John Roe’s request to proceed without paying fees and dismissed the complaint.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain gave John Roe 30 days to explain why he should not be barred from filing future cases in the court without first obtaining permission. The court also said any appeal would not qualify for fee-free status.
The detailed version
- Roe v. Data Advantage Group, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01397
- Laura Swain
- May 7, 2021
Background
John Roe filed this case without a lawyer and sought to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. He purported to bring the case for himself and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. The opinion states that several earlier cases had been filed using similar anonymous names without motions asking permission to proceed under pseudonyms. In those earlier matters, the court had directed the plaintiffs to provide their real names, signatures, and addresses; pay the filing fee or submit individual applications to proceed without prepaying fees; and request permission to proceed anonymously. The plaintiffs did not comply with those directions in the earlier matters.
The court also noted that prior filings identified John Roe as the person behind the anonymous cases and that the two other people identified in those filings had not indicated that they intended to be parties. No separate fee applications were submitted for Jane Doe 1 or Jane Doe 2, and no motion sought permission for the plaintiffs to use pseudonyms in this case.
Reasoning
The court explained that a person who is not a licensed lawyer may generally represent only himself or herself in federal court. Because John Roe was not a lawyer, he could not proceed on behalf of the other plaintiffs. The court therefore dismissed Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 without prejudice.
The court also considered whether to impose a restriction requiring John Roe to obtain permission before filing future cases. It stated that courts may restrict abusive or excessively repetitive litigation, but must first give the person notice and an opportunity to respond. The court therefore issued an order requiring John Roe to show cause—that is, explain why the restriction should not be imposed.
Ruling
The court denied John Roe’s application to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissed the complaint. It directed John Roe to submit, within 30 days, a declaration explaining why a leave-to-file restriction should not be entered for future actions. The court stated that if he failed to submit the declaration on time, or if it did not provide good cause, he would be barred from filing further actions unless he first obtained the court’s permission. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.