Dingle v. United States Department of Education
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-11533
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dingle v. Department of Education, Judge Furman denied the requested injunction process, ordered briefing on transfer, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Robert Dingle Jr., the United States Department of Education, and Coast Professionals Inc. Dingle was required to respond to the proposed transfer, and the case could be transferred to the Eastern District of New York if he did not respond.
What happened
In Dingle v. United States Department of Education, Robert Dingle Jr., representing himself, asked the court to issue an order requiring the defendants to explain why preliminary relief should not be granted.
The court declined to sign the proposed order because Dingle had not shown that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm or succeed on his claims. The court also said it was inclined to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York because Dingle lived in Cambria Heights and most of the events appeared to have occurred there.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Dingle’s request for an order to show cause and ordered him to explain in writing why the case should not be transferred. The court said it would transfer the case without further notice if he did not respond by January 3, 2020, and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Dingle v. United States Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-11533
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 18, 2019
Background
Robert Dingle Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, filed a proposed order to show cause seeking preliminary injunctive relief. An order to show cause would have required the defendants to respond to his request for relief. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Preliminary Relief
The court declined to sign the proposed order. It stated that Dingle had not shown that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm or that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The court therefore denied Dingle’s request for an order to show cause. The court stated that Dingle could file an appropriate motion supported by evidence if he believed he was entitled to relief.
Possible Transfer of the Case
The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) permits a district court to transfer a case to another district where it could have been brought when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. Because Dingle lived in Cambria Heights and most, if not all, of the events appeared to have occurred in the Eastern District of New York, the court stated that it was inclined to transfer the case there.
The court ordered Dingle to show cause in writing by January 3, 2020, why the case should not be transferred. If he responded, the defendants could respond by January 17, 2020, or one week after a notice of appearance was entered, whichever was later. If Dingle did not respond by January 3, 2020, the court stated that it would transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York without further notice. The opinion is an order to respond about a possible transfer; it does not state that the transfer had already occurred.
Appeal and Service
Judge Jesse M. Furman certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Dingle permission to proceed without paying the required appeal fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Dingle a copy of the order even though he had consented to electronic service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.