Hickman v. Platforms
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04607
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shena Y. Hickman v. Meta Platforms, Judge Swain denied post-transfer motions because the court lacked jurisdiction.
The ruling affected Shena Y. Hickman’s three post-transfer motions. The court stated that any further relief must be sought in the Northern District of California.
What happened
In Shena Y. Hickman v. Meta Platforms, Shena Y. Hickman, who was representing herself, filed three motions after the court had transferred her case to the Northern District of California and that court had received it.
The motions concerned alleged retaliation and violence and asked the defense attorney to identify laws allowing her to be drugged. The Southern District of New York explained that transferring a case generally ends the transferring court’s authority over it, subject to limited exceptions that were not shown here.
The court denied all three motions, directed the Clerk to terminate them on the docket, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Hickman v. Platforms · No. 1:25-cv-04607
- Laura Swain
- July 17, 2026
Background
Shena Y. Hickman brought the action without a lawyer. On June 11, 2025, the court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Clerk transmitted the action on June 25, 2025, and the Northern District of California acknowledged receiving it on June 27, 2025.
After the case had been closed in the Southern District of New York, Hickman filed three motions in November 2025: an “Emergency Motion for Retaliation and Acts of Violence”; an “Emergency Motion” concerning alleged retaliation and violence by Meta Platforms, Inc. and its law firm; and a motion asking the defense attorney to provide the state and federal laws that would make drugging her a legal practice.
Jurisdiction
The court explained that transferring a case generally divests the transferring court of jurisdiction, meaning the court no longer has authority to decide motions in the action. It identified limited exceptions, including a timely effort to stay or challenge the transfer before the receiving court received the case’s papers, or a challenge to whether the transferring court had authority to order the transfer.
Because the Northern District of California had acknowledged receipt of the case months before Hickman filed the motions, the Southern District of New York concluded that it no longer had jurisdiction. The court also found that the motions did not show any reason for an exception allowing it to retain jurisdiction. It stated that any further relief had to be sought in the transferee court—the court that received the transferred case.
Ruling
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Hickman’s three motions. It therefore denied the motions and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate them on the docket.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It consequently 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.