Valentine Shabazz v. Bruce
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-07849
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Valentine Shabazz v. Bruce, Judge Swain vacated an earlier order and denied Shabazz’s Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction.
Danny Amen Anderson Valentine Shabazz and the defendants—Chris Bruce, Cerron Cade, Nick Sabean, Jeff Flynn, and John Carney—are affected by the ruling on the request challenging the transfer. The court also denied Shabazz permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Valentine Shabazz v. Bruce, the court had transferred Shabazz’s case to the District of Delaware, which received the case papers on October 4, 2023. Shabazz later challenged the transfer in a December 29 letter, filed 93 days after the transfer order.
The court had treated that letter as a request to obtain relief from the transfer order under Rule 60(b) and had denied it on January 12, 2024. The court then determined that the case had already been transferred and received by the Delaware court when Shabazz filed the request.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain vacated the January 12 order to the extent it denied the Rule 60(b) request on the earlier stated reasons, and denied that request for lack of jurisdiction. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Valentine Shabazz v. Bruce · No. 1:23-cv-07849
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 19, 2024
Background
The court had transferred this action to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by an order entered September 27, 2023. The Delaware court acknowledged receipt of the action on October 4, 2023. On December 29, 2023—93 days after the Clerk of Court entered the transfer order—Shabazz filed a letter challenging the lawfulness of the transfer.
In a January 12, 2024 order, the court treated the letter as a motion for relief from a final order or judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It denied that motion for the reasons stated in that order.
Jurisdictional ruling
The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction, meaning legal authority, to decide the Rule 60(b) motion. It relied on Second Circuit precedent holding that a court that transfers an action generally cannot rule on a motion filed after the case papers have been received by the transferee court. The court noted that Shabazz filed the motion after the District of Delaware had received the action.
Disposition
The court vacated its January 12, 2024 order to the extent that order denied Shabazz’s Rule 60(b) motion for the reasons stated there. The court then denied Shabazz’s Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction.
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. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.