Folley v. Foley

N.D. Ohio

Folley v. Foley

DecidedMarch 24, 2022

Docket1:21-cv-02340

StatusUnknown

This text of Folley v. Foley (Folley v. Foley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Folley v. Foley, (N.D. Ohio 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

DEREK FOLLEY, ) CASE NO. 1:21-cv-2340 ) ) PETITIONER, ) JUDGE SARA LIOI ) VS. ) ) OPINION AND ORDER KEITH J. FOLEY, Warden, ) ) ) RESPONDENT. ) Before the Court is the motion of pro se petitioner, Derek Folley, styled “Zestfulness of Petitioner Motion [to] Vacate Transfer Order to the Southern District,” which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of its March 3, 2022 order transferring this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. (Doc. No. 34 (Motion for Reconsideration); see Doc. No. 33 (Order of Transfer).) Once this case was transferred, the Court lost jurisdiction over it, as “[j]Jurisdiction follows the file.” See Miller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 554 F.3d 653, 654 (6th Cir. 2009). This means that “TeJhallenges to the original transfer are carried over to the new jurisdiction with the transfer of the papers of the case.” K-Tex, LLC v. Cintas Corp., 693 F. App’x 406, 408 (6th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied for want of jurisdiction. Petitioner is directed to cease filing motions in this Court for this case that has now been transferred to the Southern District of Ohio. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2022 Bi me HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

DEREK FOLLEY, ) CASE NO. 1:21-cv-2340 ) ) PETITIONER, ) JUDGE SARA LIOI ) VS. ) ) OPINION AND ORDER KEITH J. FOLEY, Warden, ) ) ) RESPONDENT. ) Before the Court is the motion of pro se petitioner, Derek Folley, styled “Zestfulness of Petitioner Motion [to] Vacate Transfer Order to the Southern District,” which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of its March 3, 2022 order transferring this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. (Doc. No. 34 (Motion for Reconsideration); see Doc. No. 33 (Order of Transfer).) Once this case was transferred, the Court lost jurisdiction over it, as “[j]Jurisdiction follows the file.” See Miller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 554 F.3d 653, 654 (6th Cir. 2009). This means that “TeJhallenges to the original transfer are carried over to the new jurisdiction with the transfer of the papers of the case.” K-Tex, LLC v. Cintas Corp., 693 F. App’x 406, 408 (6th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied for want of jurisdiction. Petitioner is directed to cease filing motions in this Court for this case that has now been transferred to the Southern District of Ohio. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2022 Bi me HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Folley v. Foley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/folley-v-foley-ohnd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack