Doe v. Sequoia Capital

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AMBER DOE, Plaintiff, 23-CV-5881 (LTS) -against- ORDER SEQUOIA CAPITAL, et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed this action on July 6, 2023. By order dated August 1, 2023, the Court ordered that the action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On August 4, 2023, before the Clerk’s Office electronically transferred the action to the Southern District of California, Plaintiff filed documents challenging the transfer. The Court construed the documents as brought under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denied the motion. Two years later, on July 11, 2025, Plaintiff has submitted to the court a motion to vacate the transfer order and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s motion and IFP application, see Drabik v. Murphy, 246 F.2d 408, 409 (2d Cir. 1957) (holding that district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on motion following physical transfer of the transferred action), the Court directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the IFP application at ECF 12 and the motion at ECF 13. Any relief Plaintiff seeks must be filed in the transferee court. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: July 14, 2025 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge