Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 24, 2022

Harnett v. Russel

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-00610
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Harnett v. Russel, Judge Swain transferred Harnett’s conviction challenge to the Eastern District of New York.

Who this affects

Kelly Harnett’s federal challenge to her 2015 Queens County conviction was transferred to the Eastern District of New York; the Southern District of New York did not decide the challenge’s merits.

What happened

In Harnett v. Russel, Kelly Harnett challenged the constitutionality of her 2015 New York conviction in a petition filed without a lawyer.

Because Harnett was convicted and sentenced in Queens County, the court found that the Eastern District of New York was the proper federal court to handle the case. The Southern District of New York therefore transferred the action there and closed the case in the Southern District.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied fee-free status for any appeal. The order did not decide whether Harnett’s conviction was constitutional.

The detailed version

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

Case
Harnett v. Russel · No. 1:22-cv-00610
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 24, 2022

Background

Kelly Harnett, who was incarcerated at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, filed a petition without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenged the constitutionality of Harnett’s 2015 conviction in New York Supreme Court, Queens County.

Transfer ruling

The court transferred the action under Local Rule 83.3 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The court explained that Queens County, where Harnett was convicted and sentenced, is located in the Eastern District. The Southern District of New York’s clerk was directed to mail Harnett the order, record service on the docket, and transfer the action. The order states that the transferee court would decide whether Harnett could proceed without paying fees. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York.

Appeal-related rulings

The court stated that Harnett had not then made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

What the order did not decide

The order transferred the petition based on the proper federal district; it did not decide the merits of Harnett’s constitutional challenge to her conviction.

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.