Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 24, 2023

Jiggetts v. State of Maryland

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:17-cv-06595-CM
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jiggetts v. State of Maryland, Judge McMahon denied Alexander Jiggetts’s motion to seal because the transferred case was no longer under this court’s jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Alexander Jiggetts’s motion to seal was denied, and the court restricted further filings under the closed case number. Any request to seal through this court would require action in the District of Maryland and a transfer back to this district.

What happened

In Jiggetts v. State of Maryland, the court had transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in 2017. More than five years later, Alexander Jiggetts asked the Southern District of New York to seal the action.

The court ruled that transferring a case removes the original court’s authority to act on it. Because Jiggetts waited more than five years to file the motion, the Southern District of New York could not consider it. The court said he would need to ask the District of Maryland to transfer the case back before this court could consider sealing it.

Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion to seal for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk was directed not to accept further filings from Jiggetts under the closed case number, except filings directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jiggetts v. State of Maryland · No. 1:17-cv-06595-CM
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
May 24, 2023

Background

By order dated August 31, 2017, the Southern District of New York transferred this action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On January 30, 2023, more than five years after the transfer, Alexander Jiggetts filed a motion to seal the action.

Jurisdiction over the motion

The court explained that transferring a case removes the transferring court’s jurisdiction—the legal authority to rule on matters in the case. The transferring court retains jurisdiction to review the transfer only when the party seeking review acts to stay the transfer before the case papers reach the clerk of the receiving court. Jiggetts did not seek review until more than five years after the transfer. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion to seal.

The court stated that, if Jiggetts seeks to seal the action through the Southern District of New York, he must move in the District of Maryland and ask that court to transfer the action back to the Southern District of New York for consideration of the sealing motion.

Ruling and other directives

Judge Colleen McMahon denied Jiggetts’s motion to seal for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk was directed not to accept further submissions from Jiggetts under the closed case number, except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

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.