Walden v. Wolcott
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-08841
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Walden v. Wolcott, Judge McMahon denied reconsideration of a transfer order and directed the case to be transferred to the Southern District of New York.
John Walden’s petition remains subject to transfer to the Southern District of New York; the court also denied his request to appeal without paying fees as a person unable to afford them.
What happened
In Walden v. Wolcott, John Walden asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision transferring his petition to the Southern District of New York. He argued that the case did not challenge his conviction and that venue belonged in the district where he was incarcerated.
The court concluded that the petition concerned claims connected to an earlier request for relief from his conviction and alleged misconduct in that earlier matter. It also noted that the relevant records were in the Southern District of New York.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion for reconsideration and ordered the case transferred. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees as a person unable to afford them.
The detailed version
- Walden v. Wolcott · No. 1:20-cv-08841
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 21, 2020
Background
John Walden asked the court to reconsider an earlier order transferring his petition to the Southern District of New York. The petition alleged that an earlier request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 had been wrongly decided because of misconduct by the respondent in that earlier matter.
Walden argued that the current case did not challenge his underlying conviction and that venue was proper in the district where he was incarcerated. The petition nevertheless included allegations concerning his arrest, indictment, guilty plea, grand-jury minutes, detention, plea-related proceedings, and representation by counsel. The court described the central issue as an allegation that the earlier application for relief under § 2254 was wrongly decided because of misconduct by the respondent.
The court had transferred the petition because records concerning both the underlying conviction and the alleged misconduct were located in the Southern District of New York. Walden did not challenge or otherwise address that finding in his reconsideration motion.
Reconsideration standard
The court treated the motion as one under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(a) and 60(b). Those rules allow a court to correct certain errors or provide relief from a final order for specified reasons. The court stated that reconsideration is generally justified only by an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct a clear legal error or prevent manifest injustice.
Ruling
The court found that Walden had not persuasively shown any circumstance warranting reconsideration. It therefore denied the Motion for Reconsideration. The court ordered that the case be immediately transferred to the Southern District of New York.
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 denied leave to appeal without paying fees as a person unable to afford them, while noting that a request to proceed that way could be made to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Disposition
The Motion for Reconsideration was DENIED, and the case was ordered transferred to the Southern District of New York.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.