McCord v. Warden FCI Williamsburg
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-03407
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In McCord v. Warden FCI Williamsburg, Judge Swain denied reconsideration because the case had transferred to the Fourth Circuit.
Lamont E. McCord, whose request for reconsideration was denied; any challenge to the transfer or other requested relief must be pursued in the Fourth Circuit.
What happened
In McCord v. Warden FCI Williamsburg, Lamont E. McCord challenged his conviction through a filing labeled as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. After McCord was transferred to FCI Otisville, the case was transferred to the Southern District of New York.
The court had already decided that McCord’s filing challenged his conviction and therefore had to be treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because he had previously brought a § 2255 challenge, the court transferred the matter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as a second or successive motion. McCord then asked the district court to reconsider that transfer.
Judge Swain denied reconsideration because the case had already been transferred and the district court no longer had jurisdiction over it. The court said McCord must seek relief from the Fourth Circuit, directed the clerk not to accept further filings under this docket except papers directed to the Second Circuit, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- McCord v. Warden FCI Williamsburg · No. 1:23-cv-03407
- Laura Swain
- May 4, 2023
Background
Lamont E. McCord, who had been incarcerated at FCI Williamsburg, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his conviction from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The District of South Carolina transferred the action to the Southern District of New York after McCord was transferred to FCI Otisville.
On April 25, 2023, this court determined that the filing had to be treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because it challenged McCord’s conviction. The court noted that McCord had previously challenged his conviction and sentence under § 2255 in the Eastern District of Virginia, where his claims were denied on the merits, and that his appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court therefore treated the filing as a second or successive § 2255 motion and transferred it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Motion for reconsideration
McCord filed a motion on May 2, 2023, challenging the April 25 transfer order. The court explained that transferring a case generally removes the transferring court’s jurisdiction over the action. The transferring court retains jurisdiction to review the transfer only if the party seeking review asks to stay the transfer before the case papers reach the clerk of the receiving court.
The court stated that the case was electronically transferred to the Fourth Circuit on April 25, 2023. Because McCord filed his reconsideration motion about one week later, the court concluded that it no longer had jurisdiction to consider the request. It stated that McCord must challenge the transfer, and seek any other relief, in the Fourth Circuit.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied McCord’s request for reconsideration. The clerk was directed 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 also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.