United States District Court, S.D. New York
L. STANTON, U.S.D.J.
filed this habeas corpus action pro se. In
an order dated and entered on October 11, 2018, this Court
ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer this action, under 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a), to the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, the jurisdiction where
Petitioner was being held in the Bergen County Jail (a
habeas court must have jurisdiction over the
petitioner's custodian). The Clerk of Court mailed a copy
of that order to Petitioner on October 11, 2018, and the
District of New Jersey acknowledged receipt of this action on
October 18, 2018. On April 12, 2019, the District of New
Jersey denied the relevant habeas corpus petition
without prejudice. Reeves v. Green, 2:18-CV-15063
(D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2019), appeal pending, No. 19-2020
(3d Cir.). On April 24, 2019, this Court received a letter
from Petitioner in which he challenges this Court's
transfer of this action, seeks “reinstatement” of
this action in this Court, and states that “[v]enue for
this argument is appropriate in the Second Circuit.”
(ECF 8.) For the reasons discussed below, this Court denies
the transfer of an action divests the transferor court of
jurisdiction over the action. Drabik v. Murphy, 246
F.2d 408, 409 (2d Cir. 1957) (holding that the district court
did not have jurisdiction to rule on a motion following
physical transfer of the action); Lothian Cassidy, LLC,
v. Lothian Exploration & Dev. II, L.P., 89 F.Supp.3d
599, 600-01 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). The transferor court only
retains jurisdiction over the action if the party seeking
review of the transfer makes a request for review
“prior to receipt of the action's papers by the
clerk of the transferee court . . . .” Warrick v.
Gen. Electric Co., 70 F . 3d 736, 739 (2d Cir. 1995);
see Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 10-CV-5713
(PKC), 2011 WL 2419802, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2011)
(quoting Warrick, 70 F.3d at 739). Accordingly,
“a party opposing the transfer of a case must preserve
his opportunity to attack the decision by filing a motion for
a stay or for reconsideration or a notice of appeal in the
transferor court, or a petition for mandamus in a superior
court, before the transfer is given effect.”
Williams v. United States, Nos. 09-CV-2179,
00-CR-1008 (NRB), 2015 WL 4743534, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11,
2015) (citing Warrick, 70 F.3d at 739), appeal
dismissed, Nos. 13-1095 (L), 15-2791 (Con) (2d Cir. Mar.
16, 2016). The Second Circuit has recognized an exception to
this rule in circumstances in which an action is
“hastily” transferred to a district court outside
of the Circuit because such a transfer deprives a litigant of
the opportunity to seek mandamus relief from the
Court of Appeals for the Circuit of the transferor court.
See Warrick, 70 F.3d at 739-40.
case, this Court never had jurisdiction to order the relief
Petitioner originally requested in his petition: an order to
his custodian regarding his detention.
Court must deny Petitioner's present request because the
Court also lacks jurisdiction to consider it. On October 18,
2018 - seven days after the Court ordered the Clerk of Court
to transfer this action - the Clerk electronically
transferred this action to the District of New Jersey and
that court acknowledged receipt. Petitioner was apparently
held in immigration detention when he filed his present
request; the present request is dated April 17, 2019, and the
envelope which contained it was postmarked the next day.
Thus, he filed his present request well after the District of
New Jersey received this action, and within two weeks after
that court had denied the habeas corpus petition
Petitioner filed his present request in this Court after the
District of New Jersey received this action, and this Court
would, in any event, have no jurisdiction to direct an order
to a custodian in New Jersey,  this Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider his present request, and therefore denies it.
Court denies Petitioner's request to reinstate this
transferred action. (ECF 8.) The Clerk of Court is directed
to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner at his address of
record and at the following address: 2128 Glebe Avenue, Apt.
2, Bronx, New York 10462. The Clerk of Court must note
service on the docket.
Clerk of Court is directed to docket this order as a
“written opinion” within the meaning of Section
205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002.
 Under Local Civil Rule 83.1 of this
Court, the Clerk of Court, “unless otherwise ordered,
shall upon the expiration of seven (7) days effectuate the
transfer of [an action] to the transferee
 This Court is informed that Petitioner
is presently out of custody and residing in the