Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 14, 2025

Sanchez v. Oronoz

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-03594
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Sanchez v. Oronoz, Judge Swain kept the transfer order in place and directed transfer to Puerto Rico.

Who this affects

The plaintiff’s case will proceed in the District of Puerto Rico rather than the Southern District of New York. The transferee court will decide whether she may proceed without prepaying fees, and she was denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

What happened

In Sanchez v. Oronoz, the Southern District of New York had ordered the case transferred to the District of Puerto Rico because the defendants and events were there, and a related case was already pending there. The plaintiff asked the court to reconsider that decision before the transfer took effect.

The plaintiff argued that the Puerto Rico case had been stalled, that the judge and Puerto Rico’s court system were biased against her, and that she had been denied access to court documents. She asked the court to stop the transfer or allow her to withdraw the related case and disqualify Puerto Rico court officials.

The court found that these allegations were vague, conclusory, and unsupported by facts. Judge Swain directed the Clerk to transfer the case to the District of Puerto Rico without further delay, denied in forma pauperis status for any appeal, and stated that the transferee court would decide whether the plaintiff could proceed without paying filing fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sanchez v. Oronoz · No. 1:25-cv-03594
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 14, 2025

Background

On May 2, 2025, the court ordered this action transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico under 28 U.S.C. § 1406. The stated reasons were that all defendants reside in Puerto Rico, the plaintiff’s claims arose there, and the plaintiff already had an action against the same defendants pending in Puerto Rico.

The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on May 5, before the transfer became effective under Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 83.1. The court explained that a court ordering a transfer generally loses jurisdiction over the case once the transfer occurs, but retains jurisdiction before the case papers are received by the clerk of the transferee court. Because the plaintiff filed her motion before the transfer took effect, the court considered the motion.

Arguments

The plaintiff expressed concern that the transfer would prevent her from withdrawing her related Puerto Rico case, identified in the opinion by docket number 25-CV-1118 (D.P.R.). She asserted that the judge presiding over that matter was biased and unable to provide a fair trial, and that she had been denied access to court documents.

She also argued that Puerto Rico’s court system was institutionally biased against her because of its alleged ties to the defendants. She asked the court to reconsider the transfer or, alternatively, to allow her to withdraw the related case and disqualify all officers of the Puerto Rico federal court involved in that matter. The opinion’s footnote states that her claims concerned her suspension from practicing law in Puerto Rico and the removal of her minor child from her custody.

Ruling

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s bias allegations were vague, conclusory, and unsupported by facts. It held that the pendency of the related case without action for several months did not establish bias or show that the presiding judge could not provide a fair trial. The court found no reason why the transfer order should not take effect.

The Clerk was directed, without further delay, to transfer this action to the District of Puerto Rico. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether the plaintiff could proceed without prepaying fees, and that no summons would issue from the Southern District of New York. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.