Taboada v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 29, 2022
Docket1:22-cv-08141
StatusUnknown

This text of Taboada v. United States (Taboada v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Taboada v. United States, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RICARDO TABOADA, Petitioner, 22-CV-8141 (LJL) -against- ORDER DIRECTING ORIGINAL SIGNATURE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Petitioner brings this action pro se. Petitioner submitted the petition without a signature. Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name –or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” See also Local Civil Rule 11.1(a). The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 11(a) to require “as it did in John Hancock’s day, a name handwritten (or a mark handplaced).” Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764 (2001). Petitioner is directed to resubmit the signature page of the petition with an original signature to the Court within thirty days of the date of this order. A copy of the signature page is attached to this order. No answer shall be required at this time. If Petitioner complies with this order, the case shall be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk’s Office. If Petitioner fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED.

Dated: S eptember 29, 2022 New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge Respectfully submitted,

Ricardo Taboada — 11714-052 FCI Fort Dix Box 2000 Joint Base MDL, NJ 08640 PETITIONER — DEFENDANT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK pean naene iene □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ K UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 19-er-00117-LJL-1 Plaine onECT AR ATION AR

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Becker v. Montgomery
532 U.S. 757 (Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Taboada v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taboada-v-united-states-nysd-2022.