Fink v. Bishop
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-10978
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Fink v. Bishop, Judge Abrams transferred the action to New Jersey and denied requests to stay the transfer and issue summonses.
John W. Fink’s action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey. His requests to stay the transfer and obtain summonses were denied, and the court warned him about possible restrictions on future duplicative filings.
What happened
In Fink v. Bishop, John W. Fink asked the court to set aside judgments from earlier cases in the District of New Jersey and enter judgment in his favor. He alleged that judges in those cases violated his due-process rights.
The court said Rule 60 does not itself provide jurisdiction and that requests challenging judgments generally belong in the court that issued those judgments. It also found no basis for hearing the case in the Southern District of New York and noted that the District of New Jersey had already denied a similar request.
Judge Ronnie Abrams transferred the action to the District of New Jersey. The court denied Fink’s request to stay the transfer and his requests for summonses, closed the case, warned that further duplicative filings could lead to a filing bar, and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Fink v. Bishop · No. 1:22-cv-10978
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 25, 2023
Background
John W. Fink brought this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(1) and 60(d)(3). Those provisions allow an independent action seeking relief from a judgment and an action seeking to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. Fink alleged that three judges of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey deprived him of due process through judicial violations in five earlier cases. He did not name those judges as defendants because, according to the complaint, they had personal immunity from prosecution.
Fink asked the Southern District of New York to set aside judgments issued by the District of New Jersey and enter judgment in his favor. The District of New Jersey had already considered and denied a Rule 60(d) action brought by Fink challenging the outcomes of his earlier cases.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Rule 60(d) does not itself create subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case. It also stated that a request for relief from a judgment is generally brought in the district court that issued the judgment. Courts generally decline to hear an independent action challenging another court’s judgment when a remedy is available in the court that issued that judgment.
The court found no grounds for considering Fink’s request to set aside the District of New Jersey judgments. It also stated that the denial of Fink’s earlier Rule 60(d) motion by the District of New Jersey was not a basis for reconsideration in the Southern District of New York. Separately, the court found that Fink had alleged no facts showing that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue. The complaint stated that the defendants were citizens of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and Fink’s residence in the Eastern District of New York did not make the Southern District of New York the proper venue.
Rulings
The court denied Fink’s application for judgment and transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The clerk was directed to transfer the action, and the order closed the case. The court also denied Fink’s request to stay the transfer and his requests for issuance of summonses.
The court warned that further duplicative litigation in the Southern District of New York could result in an order barring Fink from filing new actions there without first obtaining the court’s permission. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order on January 25, 2023.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.