Atas v. The New York Times Company
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-00853
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Atas v. The New York Times Company, Judge Swain ordered a pro se plaintiff to resubmit unsigned filings and denied fee-free appeal status.
Nadire Atas, whose unsigned complaint and application required correction before the case could proceed; the defendants were not reached on the merits.
What happened
In Atas v. The New York Times Company, Nadire Atas filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying court fees, but neither document was signed. The court explained that an unrepresented party must personally sign court filings.
Because Atas filed by email, the court required her to resubmit the signature pages within 30 days, using a handwritten signature, an electronic signature, or the prescribed typed format. The court directed that no summons issue for now.
Judge Swain ordered that the case would be processed if Atas complied and would be dismissed if she did not. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Atas v. The New York Times Company · No. 1:22-cv-00853
- James Oetken
- Feb. 2, 2022
Background
Nadire Atas brought this action without a lawyer. She submitted the complaint and an application to proceed without prepaying filing fees, but both documents lacked signatures.
Signature requirement
The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and Local Civil Rule 11.1(a), which require an unrepresented party to sign court filings personally. For filings submitted by email under the applicable temporary rule, the court said a pro se party may sign by hand and scan the document, use a digital signature, or type "/s/Filer’s Name."
Order
The court directed Atas to resubmit the signature pages of the complaint and the fee-waiver application within 30 days of the order, using an original or permitted electronic signature. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that, if Atas complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures; if she failed to comply within the allowed period, the action would be dismissed.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Atas and record service on the docket.
Disposition
This was a procedural order directing correction of unsigned filings. It did not decide the underlying claims against The New York Times Company or the other defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.