Culbreth v. Manuel
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-00497
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Culbreth v. Manuel, Judge Halpern ordered Kareem H. Culbreth to resubmit a signed counsel request within 30 days or face denial.
Kareem H. Culbreth and his application asking the court to request volunteer counsel; the order also affects any attempted appeal from this order.
What happened
In Culbreth v. Manuel, Kareem H. Culbreth, who is representing himself, submitted an application asking the court to request a volunteer lawyer. The application did not include a signature.
The court explained that court filings by people without lawyers must bear the person’s handwritten or personally placed signature. It gave Culbreth a copy of the signature page to use.
Judge Halpern ordered Culbreth to return the signed page within 30 days of the order. The court said the application will be denied if he does not comply, denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Culbreth v. Manuel · No. 7:24-cv-00497
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 1, 2024
Background
Kareem H. Culbreth, proceeding without a lawyer, submitted an application asking the court to request volunteer counsel in this action. The application was not signed.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and Local Civil Rule 11.1(a) require a person who is not represented by a lawyer to personally sign pleadings, motions, and other papers. The court explained that this requirement calls for a handwritten or personally placed mark, not merely an unsigned submission.
Order
The court directed Culbreth to resubmit the application’s signature page with an original signature within 30 days of the order. The court stated that the application will be denied if he does not comply within that time. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. Finally, the clerk was directed to terminate the motion sequence pending at Document 11.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.