Chapman v. U.S. Depmiment of Housing and Urban Development
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04765
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Chapman v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Judge Swain denied Chapman’s motions because transfer left this court without jurisdiction.
Tasha Chapman’s requests in the Southern District of New York were denied; the action remains closed in that court, and any request for voluntary dismissal or other relief must be made in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
What happened
In Chapman v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the court had already transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. That court acknowledged receiving the case before Chapman filed additional submissions in the Southern District of New York.
Chapman, who was representing herself, asked the court to vacate or reopen the transfer order, dismiss claims against some defendants, and consider her objection and notice of intent to appeal. She filed these submissions after the transfer had taken effect.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that the transfer had removed the Southern District of New York’s authority to act in the case. The court denied all of Chapman’s motions and stated that the matter remains closed there; requests for voluntary dismissal or other relief must be made in the transferee court.
The detailed version
- Chapman v. U.S. Depmiment of Housing and Urban Development · No. 1:25-cv-04765
- Laura Swain
- July 2, 2025
Background
Tasha Chapman brought this action without a lawyer. On June 13, 2025, entered on the docket June 16, the court transferred the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The transferee court acknowledged receipt of the action on June 25.
Submissions at Issue
On June 30, Chapman filed several submissions: a motion under Rules 59(e) and 60 asking to vacate, reopen, and obtain relief from the transfer order; a supporting memorandum; a Rule 41 motion seeking voluntary dismissal of her claims against several defendants; a notice of intent to appeal; and an objection to the transfer order. The opinion notes that Chapman did not file a notice of appeal.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that transferring an action generally removes the transferring court’s jurisdiction—the legal authority to act in the case. It said the transferring court can retain jurisdiction only if the party seeking review acts to stay the transfer before the transferee court receives the case papers. Chapman filed her submissions after the Southern District of Ohio had acknowledged receipt, so the Southern District of New York no longer had jurisdiction to consider them.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Chapman’s motions, identified as ECF 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, because the court lacked jurisdiction. The court stated that the matter remains closed in the Southern District of New York. It also stated that Chapman must seek voluntary dismissal of claims against particular defendants or other relief in the transferee court. Finally, the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.