Jones v. The City of New York
- Louis Stanton
- 1:19-cv-09126
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jones v. The City of New York, Judge Stanton declined to consider Jones’s modification request because his appeal transferred jurisdiction to the appeals court.
Kareem Omar Jones, whose request to modify the earlier dismissal could not be considered by the district court while his appeal was pending.
What happened
In Jones v. The City of New York, the court had previously dismissed Kareem Omar Jones’s action for failure to state a claim. Jones then filed a notice of appeal.
After the appeal was sent to the Second Circuit, Jones submitted an informal request to modify the court’s dismissal. The court explained that filing the appeal transferred control over the relevant parts of the case to the appeals court.
Because the appeal was pending, the district court could not consider Jones’s request until the appeal proceedings ended, Judge Louis L. Stanton ruled. The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Jones and send a copy to the Second Circuit Clerk.
The detailed version
- Jones v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-09126
- Louis Stanton
- Sept. 10, 2020
Background
The court had dismissed Kareem Omar Jones’s action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Jones filed a notice of appeal, and the district court transmitted it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
More than one month later, the district court received Jones’s “informal application for modification,” dated May 31, 2020, and postmarked June 15, 2020. The opinion’s footnote explains that a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a rule allowing certain forms of relief from a judgment, can affect when a notice of appeal becomes effective if filed within 28 days after judgment. The court stated that Jones’s motion was not filed within that 28-day period, so that exception did not apply.
Ruling
The court stated that filing a notice of appeal gave the appeals court jurisdiction over the relevant aspects of the case and removed the district court’s control over them. Because Jones’s appeal was pending, the district court stated that it could not consider his modification request until the appeal proceedings were closed. The order did not state that the request was granted or denied. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Jones, note service on the docket, and deliver a copy to the Second Circuit Clerk.
Disposition
The court did not adjudicate the modification request on its merits. It declined to consider the request while the appeal was pending because of the district court’s lack of jurisdiction over the relevant aspects of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.