Labombard v. Harrell
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-02196
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Labombard v. Harrell, Judge Swain ordered a pro se plaintiff to submit an original complaint signature within 30 days or face dismissal.
Schoen M. Labombard and the status of his case; the order required him to provide an original signature before the action could proceed.
What happened
In Labombard v. Harrell, Schoen M. Labombard filed a complaint without a signature. The opinion states that he was representing himself.
The court directed Labombard to resubmit the complaint’s signature page with an original signature within 30 days. The court said no summons would issue at that time and that the case would proceed through the Clerk’s Office if he complied; otherwise, the action would be dismissed.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order did not address the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Labombard v. Harrell · No. 1:22-cv-02196
- Laura Swain
- June 8, 2022
Background
Schoen M. Labombard brought the action without a lawyer and submitted a complaint that did not contain a signature. The defendants are identified in the caption as Officer Brian Harrell and other defendants.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires every pleading, written motion, and other paper to be signed by an attorney or, when a party is unrepresented, by that party personally. The court also cited the corresponding local rule and explained that the signature must be handwritten or another mark placed by hand.
Order
The court directed Labombard to resubmit the complaint’s signature page with an original signature within 30 days of the order. No summons would issue at that time. If Labombard complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed.
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. It therefore denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.