Panchitkaew v. NY State Attorney General
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09686
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Panchitkaew v. NY State Attorney General: Judge McMahon denied reconsideration of the transfer and denied two related motions as moot.
Marut Panchitkaew's requests for reconsideration, relief from the transfer order, sealing, and submission of electronic data were denied; the transfer to the Eastern District of New York remained in place.
What happened
In Panchitkaew v. NY State Attorney General, Marut Panchitkaew asked the court to reconsider its decision to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York and submitted related filings.
The court concluded it still had authority to consider the request because the transfer had not yet been completed when Panchitkaew filed it. The court nevertheless found that he had not shown that it overlooked controlling law or important facts, and he had not established grounds for relief from the order.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the reconsideration request. She also denied the motion to seal and the motion to submit electronic data as moot, meaning those motions no longer required a ruling. The court also stated that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Panchitkaew v. NY State Attorney General · No. 1:19-cv-09686
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 20, 2019
Background
Marut Panchitkaew filed the action without a lawyer. On December 17, 2019, the court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On December 18, Panchitkaew filed a motion seeking to submit electronic data on a compact disc, a motion to seal, and a second amended complaint.
The court treated the second amended complaint as a request to alter or amend the transfer order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a request for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and, alternatively, a request for relief from the order under Rule 60(b).
Jurisdiction to Consider Reconsideration
Ordinarily, once a case is transferred, the court that ordered the transfer no longer has authority over the case. The court explained that its local rule delays the transfer for seven days so that a party opposing transfer can seek review. Because the Clerk had not yet completed the transfer and the motion was filed before the Eastern District of New York docketed the action, this court concluded that it retained authority to decide the motion.
Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3
The court stated that reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 requires the moving party to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court had transferred the case because it concluded that transfer was in the interest of justice. It found that Panchitkaew's submission did not show that the court had overlooked controlling decisions or relevant facts. The court therefore denied the motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) allows relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction of the judgment. The court found that Panchitkaew had not alleged facts supporting any of the first five grounds. It also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the provision for other reasons justifying relief, because Panchitkaew had not shown extraordinary circumstances.
Disposition
The court denied Panchitkaew's motion for reconsideration. It denied the motion to seal and the motion to submit electronic data as moot and directed the Clerk to terminate those motions. The court also directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Panchitkaew and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith; it therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.