Liner v. Jenkins
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-03448
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Liner v. Jenkins, Judge Swain ordered Joshua Liner to submit a handwritten signature before the case could proceed.
Joshua Liner and the action he filed; the order also affects the defendants because the case will not be processed or a summons issued unless Liner complies.
What happened
In Liner v. Jenkins, Joshua Liner filed this lawsuit without a signature and was representing himself. The court explained that court filings must be personally signed when a person has no lawyer.
The court ordered Liner to complete, sign, and return the attached declaration within 30 days. No summons will issue for now. If Liner complies, the case will be processed; if he does not, the court stated that the action will be dismissed.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Liner permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.
The detailed version
- Liner v. Jenkins · No. 1:22-cv-03448
- Laura Swain
- May 16, 2022
Background
Joshua Liner brought this action without a lawyer. He submitted the complaint without a signature. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and Local Civil Rule 11.1(a), which require a filing by an unrepresented party to be signed personally. The court explained that this means a handwritten name or a handplaced mark.
Order
The court directed Liner to complete, sign, and submit the attached declaration within 30 days of the order. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Liner complies, the Clerk’s Office will process the action under its procedures. If he does not comply within the allowed period, the action will be dismissed.
Appeal-fee ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the required fees for an appeal.
Disposition
The court entered an order directing an original signature; it did not dismiss the action in this order. The case’s continuation depends on Liner’s timely compliance with the signature requirement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.