Caldwell v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Ona Wang
- 1:19-cv-06534
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Boisey Caldwell v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Wang denied reconsideration because a pending appeal removed jurisdiction from the district court.
Boisey Caldwell and the Commissioner of Social Security; the order primarily affected Caldwell’s motion for reconsideration and the district court’s ability to alter its prior ruling.
What happened
Boisey Caldwell asked the Southern District of New York to reconsider a Clerk’s Judgment dated October 21, 2020. The opinion states that Caldwell was representing himself and had appealed the same ruling to the Second Circuit.
The court said that filing the appeal gave the Court of Appeals authority over the issues being appealed and prevented the district court from changing its ruling. Because Caldwell’s motion sought reconsideration of that same ruling, the court denied the motion.
Judge Ona T. Wang directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Caldwell and close the motion docket entry. The order did not decide the issues raised in the underlying appeal.
The detailed version
- Caldwell v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-06534
- Ona Wang
- June 10, 2021
Background
Boisey Caldwell, who was representing himself, moved for reconsideration of the Clerk’s Judgment entered on October 21, 2020. The opinion identifies that judgment as ECF 36 and the reconsideration motion as ECF 40. Caldwell had also filed an appeal of the underlying ruling in the Second Circuit.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction—the legal authority to act—to modify any part of the prior ruling while the appeal was pending. It explained that filing a notice of appeal transferred control over the appealed issues to the Court of Appeals. Because Caldwell’s motion sought reconsideration of the same ruling that was on appeal, the district court concluded that those issues were under the Court of Appeals’ exclusive authority.
Ruling
The court denied Caldwell’s motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the order to Caldwell and close ECF 40. The order did not address the merits of the underlying Social Security dispute or decide the pending appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.