Jordan v. United States of America

Filing 36

ORDER denying 35 Motion re: 35 MOTION FOR DECLARATION OF DEFAULT, AND DECLARATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD RETURN SEIZED PROPERTY(HELD BY THE FBI) TO MOVANT OR HIS AGENT. Jordan's motion for declaration of default is denied. Accord ingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the March 12, 2021 motions are denied. 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 IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v.United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail Jordan a copy of this Order and note mailing on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 4/6/2021) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------- X
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
:
-v:
:
JOSEPH JORDAN,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
--------------------------------------- X

18cv3372 (DLC)
08cr124 (DLC)
ORDER

DENISE COTE, District Judge:
On March 12, 2021, Joseph Jordan submitted a filing
consisting of two parts. 1

The first part of the filing is styled

as a “Motion for Declaration of Default, and Declaration That
The Government Should Return Seized Property (Held By The FBI)
To Movant or His Agent,” and the second part is styled as a
“Notice of Appeal & Motion For Reconsideration Regarding
Decision on Motion for Relief.”
In the first motion, Jordan argues that the Government is
in default because it failed to respond to his August 4, 2020
motion for return of property, and that the Court should
therefore order the Government to return his property.

In the

second motion, Jordan requests that this Court reconsider its
December 21, 2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order (the “December
2020 Opinion”) denying his August 4, 2020 motion for
The March 12 filing was received and docketed by this Chambers
on March 25.
1

reconsideration of this Court’s August 2019 Opinion denying his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 2
Jordan’s motion for declaration of default is denied.
Pursuant to this Court’s Order of December 21, 2020, the Clerk
of Court assigned Jordan’s motion for return of property to a
new civil docket number, No. 20-cv-10812.

An Order of January

20, 2021 informed Jordan that, in order to proceed with his
motion for return of property, he was required to pay the
$402.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) accompanied by the required prisoner
authorization form.

Jordan was instructed that, if he failed to

comply with the Court’s order to submit the filing fee or an
application to proceed IFP on Dkt. No. 20-cv-10812 within 45
days of January 20, 2021, his civil action for return of
property would be dismissed.

Jordan did not comply with the

Court’s January 20, 2021 order.

In an Order of March 15, 2021,

his motion for return of property was denied.

Since Jordan

never complied with the conditions for initiating a new civil
action, the Government was never obligated to respond to his
motion for return of property and is not in default.
The filing is styled as both a notice of appeal and a motion
for reconsideration. Jordan, however, had previously filed on
March 5, 2021 a notice of appeal of this Court’s December 2020
Opinion. The Court therefore construes the filing solely as a
second motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed.
R. Civ. P.
2

2

Jordan’s renewed motion for reconsideration is also denied. 3
For the reasons set forth in the December 2020 Opinion, Jordan’s
initial motion for reconsideration was untimely.
renewed motion is denied for the same reason.

Jordan’s

Accordingly, it

is hereby
ORDERED that the March 12, 2021 motions are denied.

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
IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.

Cf. Coppedge

v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail
Jordan a copy of this Order and note mailing on the docket.
SO ORDERED:
Dated:

New York, New York
April 6, 2021
____________________________
DENISE COTE
United States District Judge

Jordan has previously filed a notice of appeal of the December
2020 Opinion, and ordinarily, “[t]he filing of a timely and
sufficient notice of appeal divests the district court of
jurisdiction as to any matters involved in the appeal or as to
the matters covered by the notice.” New York v. United States
Dep't of Homeland Sec., 974 F.3d 210, 215 (2d Cir. 2020)
(citation omitted). Assuming without deciding that Jordan’s
notice of appeal was timely and sufficient, this Court retains
jurisdiction to deny Jordan’s renewed motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 62.1(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., which allows a
district court to deny a motion “made for relief that the court
lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been
docketed and is pending.”
3

3