King v. King

Background

Sharif King, who was proceeding without a lawyer and was incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility, sued Sharod King, his brother. He asserted a breach-of-contract claim and invoked diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction, which generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states. In an earlier order, the court gave Sharif King permission to file an amended complaint stating facts showing diverse citizenship and proper venue.

Sharif King appealed that earlier order. The Clerk’s Office processed the appeal on June 8, 2022, and transferred the action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Sharif King later sent a letter asking the court to treat the letter’s facts as a supplement to his complaint because he could not afford the postage needed to mail an amended pleading. He asserted that the parties had diverse citizenship and stated that Sharod King had resided in New York before his current incarceration. The opinion also notes that Sharif King had stated in his complaint that he resided in Georgia before his current incarceration.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that transferring a case to an appeals court generally removes the trial court’s authority to act on the case. Applying that rule, the court concluded that it lacked authority to decide Sharif King’s request because the appeal had been transferred and was pending in the Second Circuit. The court treated the letter as filed on June 23, 2022, under the prisoner-mailbox rule, which treats a prisoner’s document as filed when he gives it to prison officials for mailing. That timing did not change the court’s conclusion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 allows a trial court that lacks authority to grant a motion because of a pending appeal to state that it would grant the motion if the appeals court sends the case back for that purpose. The court therefore stated that it would grant Sharif King’s request to supplement his complaint with the facts in his June 23 letter if the Second Circuit remanded the case for that purpose.

Disposition

The court indicated under Rule 62.1(a)(3) that it would grant the request to supplement the complaint if the Second Circuit remanded the case for that purpose. It did not grant the supplementation request at that time. The court directed Sharif King to inform the Second Circuit of the order and directed the clerk to send a copy to that court.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The order is signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.