Caldwell v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 11, 2024·No. 1:21-cv-06560·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EMMETT CALDWELL, Plaintiff, 21-CV-6560 (DEH) v.

CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., ORDER Defendants.

DALE E. HO, United States District Judge: On February 26, 2024, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (the “MSJ Opinion”). See ECF No. 103. On February 27, 2024, the Clerk of Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. See ECF No. 104. On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the MSJ Opinion. See ECF No. 105. On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the MSJ Opinion. See ECF No. 106. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. “As a general matter, the filing of the notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” United States v. Jacques, 6 F.4th 337, 342 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). “It is not tolerable to have a district court and a court of appeals simultaneously analyzing the same judgment, i.e., to have situations in which district courts and courts of appeals would both have the power to modify the same judgment.” Id. (internal quotation marks, ellipses, and citations omitted). Although in certain situations, clerical corrections may be made to a judgment under appeal, “substantive modifications of a judgment while an appeal is pending” are not permitted. Id. at 344. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the MSJ Opinion is denied, because the Court lacks jurisdiction to modify it or the judgment entered. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at ECF No. 106 and to mail this Order to pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 11, 2024 New York, New York

DALE E. HO United States District Judge

OCTOBER 2023

Individual Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases Dale E. Ho, United States District Judge

Pro Se Office United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall Courthouse 40 Foley Square / 40 Centre Street Room 105 New York, NY 10007 (212) 805-0175

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, these Individual Practices apply to all civil cases involving pro se litigants (that is, litigants without counsel) before Judge Ho.

1. Resources for Pro Se Parties

a. Court Website. Pro se parties are directed to the Court’s website (https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/prose/role-of-the-prose-intake-unit/contact) for other important information concerning proceeding pro se in this Court.

b. Pro Se Law Clinic. There is a Pro Se Law Clinic in this District to assist non- incarcerated people who are parties in civil cases and do not have lawyers. The Clinic may be able to provide a non-incarcerated pro se litigant with advice in connection with his or her case. The Pro Se Law Clinic is run by a private organization called the New York Legal Assistance Group (“NYLAG”); it is not part of, or run by, the Court (and, among other things, therefore cannot accept filings on behalf of the Court, which must still be made by any unrepresented party through the Pro Se Office).

An unrepresented party can make an appointment with NYLAG through NYLAG’s website (https://nylag.org/gethelp/) by completing an intake form online or via smartphone, available at https://nylagoi.legalserver.org/modules/matt er/extern_intake.php?pid=142&h=cea984&; by visiting the kiosk at the Courthouse; or by calling (212) 659-6190 and leaving a message. The Clinic is located in the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street (also known as “40 Foley Square”), New York, New York, in Room LL22, which is just inside the Pearl Street entrance to that Courthouse. Under normal circumstances, the Clinic is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., except on days when the Court is closed. 2. Communications with Chambers

a. No Communications to Chambers. All communications with the Court by a pro se party should be in writing and filed on ECF, emailed as a PDF, delivered in person, or physically mailed as described in Section 3(b) below. No documents or court filings may be sent directly to Chambers. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all communications with the Court will be docketed upon receipt; such docketing shall constitute service on any user of the ECF system. If any other party is not a user of the ECF system (e.g., if there is another pro se party in the case), a pro se party must send copies of any filing to that party and include an Affidavit of Service or other statement affirming that it has done so. Copies of correspondence between a pro se party and opposing parties shall not be sent to the Court. Any questions should be directed to the Pro Se Office at (212) 805- 0175.

b. Contact Information. Pro se parties are required to maintain their current mailing address on the docket at all times and must notify the Court of any change of address by filing a change of address form with the Pro Se Office.

c. Communications by Parties Represented by Counsel. Except as otherwise provided below, communications with the Court by a represented party shall be governed by Judge Ho’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-dale-e-ho.

d. Requests for Rescheduling a Conference or Extensions of Time. All requests to reschedule a conference or extend a deadline must be made in writing and must state: (1) the original date(s) of the conference or deadline; (2) the reasons for the requested extension; (3) whether the other party or parties consent and, if not, the reasons given for refusing to consent; and (4) the date of the next scheduled appearance before the Court as well as any other existing deadlines. Requests for extensions of deadlines regarding a matter that has been referred to a Magistrate Judge shall be addressed to that assigned Magistrate Judge.

Absent an emergency, any request for an extension or to reschedule a conference must be made at least two business days prior to the deadline or scheduled appearance.

3. Filing of Papers and Service

a. Consent to Receive Electronic Service. To ensure timely service of documents, including Court Orders, non-incarcerated pro se parties are encouraged to consent to receive electronic service through the ECF System. To do so, a pro se party should review the instructions available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/ default/files/2021-03/Consent_Pro-Se_Eservice-Instructions.pdf, and then submit a Consent to Electronic Service (available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/ default/files/2021-03/Consent_Pro-Se_Eservice-form.pdf).

b. Papers Filed by a Pro Se Party. A pro se party may file papers with the Court by:

i. delivering them in person to the Pro Se Office, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Centre Street (40 Foley Square), Room 105, New York, NY 10007;

ii. mailing them to Pro Se Office at: United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, ATTN: Pro Se Intake;

iii. emailing them as an attachment in PDF format to Temporary_Pro_Se_ Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov, in which case the pro se party should follow the instructions contained in the April 1, 2020, Addendum to the Court’s ECF Rules & Instructions, available in Appendix C at https://www.nysd. uscourts.gov/electronic-case-filing; or

iv. filing them on the ECF System if the pro se party has filed a motion to participate in ECF (available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files /2019-04/2012-prosemotionecffiling-final.pdf and in the Pro Se Office) and been granted such permission by the Court.

c. Service on a Pro Se Party.

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

Caldwell v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Caldwell v. City of New York (Caldwell v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Jacques
6 F.4th 337 (Second Circuit, 2021)