Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 30, 2020

Fink v. Bishop

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-10533
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Fink v. Bishop, Judge McMahon denied Fink’s reconsideration request because transferring the case ended this court’s jurisdiction.

Who this affects

John W. Fink’s request to reconsider the transfer of his case was denied. Any challenge to the transfer had to be made in the District of New Jersey; the court also terminated other pending matters and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

What happened

In Fink v. Bishop, John W. Fink filed the action without a lawyer. The court had transferred the case to the District of New Jersey on December 17, 2020, and Fink later asked the court to reconsider that transfer.

The court explained that a court that transfers a case generally loses authority over it once the transfer occurs. It said Fink had to challenge the transfer in the District of New Jersey.

Judge Colleen McMahon denied Fink’s reconsideration request. The court also terminated all other pending matters, directed the clerk not to accept further filings under this docket number except papers for the Second Circuit, and denied fee-free status for any appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Fink v. Bishop · No. 1:20-cv-10533
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Dec. 30, 2020

Background

John W. Fink filed the action without a lawyer. On December 17, 2020, the court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The clerk electronically transferred the case that same day. On December 23, 2020, Fink sent a letter asking the court to reconsider the transfer order.

Jurisdiction after transfer

The court stated that transferring a case removes the transferring court’s authority over the action. It explained that the transferring court retains authority to review the transfer only when the party seeking review acts to stop the transfer before the receiving court gets the case papers. Because the case had already been electronically transferred and Fink’s request came about a week later, the court concluded that it no longer had authority over the action. The court stated that any challenge to the transfer had to be made in the District of New Jersey.

Ruling

Judge Colleen McMahon denied Fink’s request for reconsideration of the transfer order. The conclusion also directed the clerk to mail Fink a copy of the order and record service, terminated all other pending matters, and directed the clerk not to accept further submissions under this docket number except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.