Grant v. Adult Protective Service
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-00891
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Grant v. Adult Protective Service, Judge Swain denied reconsideration and review of fee-waiver status because the case had been transferred.
The plaintiffs, Elizabeth Grant and Grace Grant, whose reconsideration and fee-waiver requests were denied in this court; any requested relief must be sought in the Eastern District of New York.
What happened
In Grant v. Adult Protective Service, Elizabeth Grant and Grace Grant asked the court to reconsider the transfer of their case and to address their request to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court said that transferring a case generally ends the transferring court’s authority over it once the receiving court gets the case papers. The motion was filed after the Eastern District of New York received the case, so any requested relief had to be sought there.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion to reconsider and the request concerning fee-waiver status. She also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Grant v. Adult Protective Service · No. 1:22-cv-00891
- Laura Swain
- June 18, 2025
Background
Elizabeth Grant and Grace Grant were listed as the plaintiffs. The action was filed in this court, along with an application to proceed without paying filing fees and an application asking the court to request counsel. The court did not rule on those applications before transferring the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Elizabeth Grant later filed a document titled “Motion to Reconsider and IFP Status.” The opinion describes the filing as explaining why she believed she qualified to proceed without paying filing fees.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that transferring a case generally removes the transferring court’s authority to act on it. The transferring court keeps authority to review the transfer only if the party seeking review asks to pause the transfer before the receiving court gets the case papers.
The opinion contains inconsistent years for the transfer and the Eastern District of New York’s receipt of the case. Its earlier background discussion gives February 4, 2022, and February 11, 2022; a later paragraph gives February 4, 2024, and February 11, 2024. The court nonetheless stated that the motion filed on October 3, 2024, was filed well after the receiving court had received the action. It therefore concluded that this court no longer had authority over the case.
Ruling
The court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider and IFP Status and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF 6. It also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The order directed the clerk to mail a copy to the plaintiffs and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.