Hall v. Annucci

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RALPH HALL, Plaintiff, No. 19-cv-05521 (KMK) -v- ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ET AL., VACATE Defendants.

KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff Ralph Hall (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Vacate the Court’s August 20, 2022 Summary Judgment Order “by Independent Action” (the “First Motion”). (Dkt. Nos. 209–12.) In a a Memo Endorsed Order issued on April 29, 2024, the Court noted Plaintiff had filed a Notice of Appeal in which he appealed the Court’s denials of his motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 for relief from that same summary judgment order. (Dkt. No. 216 (citing Dkt. No. 207).) Because “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), the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to vacate the challenged order and judgment and accordingly, denied Plaintiff’s First Motion, (Dkt. No. 216 (citing Caldwell v. City of New York, No. 21-CV-6560, 2024 WL 1586695, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2024)). On October 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Vacate the Court’s Summary’s Judgment Order “by Independent Action” (the “Instant Motion”). (Dkt. No. 218.) For purposes of this Order, the Court will construe the Instant Motion as a motion for reconsideration. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff's appeal is still pending in front of the Second Circuit. (See Dkt. No. 217; Second Circuit Dkt. No. 24-565.) Thus, the Court still lacks Jurisdiction to vacate the challenged order and judgment. Caldwell, 2024 WL 1586695, at *1. In any event, even if this Court retained jurisdiction over Plaintiff's case, the Instant Motion is untimely. See L. Civ. R. 6.3 (“Unless otherwise provided by the court or by statute or rule (such as Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, 52, and 59), a notice of motion for reconsideration must be served within 14 days after the entry of the court’s order being challenged.”). Moreover, it is meritless. (See Dkt. No. 197 (denying Plaintiff's previous motion for reconsideration and noting that the Second Circuit has already once affirmed this Court’s decision granting summary judgment to Defendants). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Instant Motion is hereby DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully asked to terminate the pending Motion, (see Dkt. No. 218), and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED. eet eet Soper teat ma DATED: October 22, 2024 White Plains, New York % KENNETH M. KARAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE