McWilliams v. Sandy
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-04651
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In McWilliams v. Sandy, Judge Swain denied reconsideration of the transfer to Northern New York and closed the action.
Michael P. McWilliams and the named defendants were affected by the denial of reconsideration; the action remained transferred to the Northern District of New York and was closed in the Southern District of New York.
What happened
Michael P. McWilliams, representing himself, challenged the court’s earlier decision to transfer his case to the Northern District of New York. The court had transferred the case because events occurred in both districts and the defendants were located in Cortland County.
McWilliams argued that the case had been incorrectly coded as a prisoner civil-rights case and that the court may have been confused about whether he was incarcerated. He also argued that events occurred in Westchester County and that another related action was still pending. The court said these arguments did not show that it had overlooked controlling law or important facts.
Judge Swain denied McWilliams’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). The action was closed, and the court denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- McWilliams v. Sandy · No. 1:23-cv-04651
- Laura Swain
- June 15, 2023
Background
Michael P. McWilliams filed the action without a lawyer against Paul A. Sandy, David Guerrera, the Cortland City Police Department’s Criminal Investigation Division, and the Cortland City Police Department. On June 9, 2023, the court transferred the action to the Northern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
McWilliams then filed a letter challenging the transfer. Because he filed it before the case papers had been sent to the Northern District, the Southern District determined that it still had authority to consider the challenge. The court treated the letter as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Arguments and analysis
For a Rule 59(e) motion, the moving party must show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters that had already been presented. The court said such motions are narrowly applied and cannot be used simply to repeat arguments or present new theories after an adverse ruling.
McWilliams argued that the Clerk of Court had used Nature of Suit Code 550, which includes civil-rights cases filed by prisoners or people in custody. He stated that he was not and had never been a prisoner. He also referred to an earlier related action and argued that the transfer occurred before his claims in that matter had been addressed. Finally, he argued that a substantial part of the events occurred in Westchester County.
The court explained that its earlier order had already found that events related to the claims occurred in both Cortland County and Westchester County. It also found that venue was proper in the Northern District because all defendants resided in Cortland County. The court had considered the relevant convenience factors and concluded that transfer was appropriate because substantial events occurred in Cortland County, the defendants resided there, and relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be there. The court noted that the Nature of Suit Code appeared to have been an administrative error, but said that the error did not affect the transfer decision. It also said that the existence of another pending action did not make the transfer inappropriate.
Ruling and disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied McWilliams’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). The court stated that McWilliams had not shown that it overlooked controlling legal decisions or factual matters. The action was closed, and the Clerk was directed to accept only documents 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 an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.