Reeves v. I.C.E.
- Louis Stanton
- 1:18-cv-07195
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Reeves v. ICE, Judge Stanton denied Reeves’s request to reinstate a transferred habeas case because this court lacked jurisdiction.
Michale Duke Reeves, who sought to reinstate a habeas case after the Southern District of New York transferred it to the District of New Jersey; the respondents were ICE and Four-Unknown Agents.
What happened
Michale Duke Reeves filed this detention challenge without a lawyer. The court had transferred his case to the District of New Jersey because that court had jurisdiction over the New Jersey jail holding him. After the transfer, the New Jersey court denied his habeas petition without prejudice.
Reeves later asked the Southern District of New York to reinstate the transferred case and argued that venue for his challenge was proper in the Second Circuit. The court explained that a court transferring a case generally loses jurisdiction once the receiving court gets the case papers. Reeves made his request after that transfer had taken effect.
Judge Louis L. Stanton ruled that the Southern District of New York lacked jurisdiction to consider Reeves’s request and denied it. The court also stated that it had not originally had jurisdiction to order relief against a custodian in New Jersey.
The detailed version
- Reeves v. I.C.E. · No. 1:18-cv-07195
- Louis Stanton
- Jan. 9, 2020
Background
Michale Duke Reeves filed this habeas case without a lawyer, seeking an order directed to his custodian concerning his detention. On October 11, 2018, the Southern District of New York ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to the District of New Jersey, because Reeves was being held at the Bergen County Jail and a habeas court must have jurisdiction over the petitioner’s custodian. The District of New Jersey received the case on October 18, 2018.
The District of New Jersey later denied the relevant habeas petition without prejudice. Reeves then sent the Southern District of New York a letter challenging the transfer, asking that the case be reinstated there, and stating that venue for his argument was proper in the Second Circuit. The opinion says that Reeves’s request was dated April 17, 2019, and that he was apparently in immigration detention when he made it. A footnote states that he was later out of custody and residing in the Bronx.
Jurisdiction and transfer
The court explained that transferring a case generally divests the transferring court of jurisdiction over the action. The transferring court retains jurisdiction to review the transfer only if the party seeking review acts before the receiving court gets the case papers. The opinion identifies possible methods of preserving review, including requesting a stay or reconsideration, filing a notice of appeal, or seeking a court order from a higher court before the transfer takes effect. It also noted a recognized exception for a hasty transfer that prevents a litigant from seeking review in the transferring circuit.
The court concluded that those principles did not help Reeves. The District of New Jersey had acknowledged receipt of the case seven days after the transfer order, and Reeves filed his request after that court received the action. The court further stated that it never had jurisdiction to order the relief Reeves originally sought because that relief concerned a custodian in New Jersey.
Ruling
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Reeves’s request and denied his request to reinstate the transferred action. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Reeves at his address of record and at another address listed in the order, and to record service on the docket. The opinion does not state that the Southern District of New York dismissed the action or otherwise determine the merits of the underlying detention claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.