Hooks v. The City of New York

Opinion

| USDC SDNY | DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: WESLEY ALEXANDER HOOKS, DATE FILED:_5/5/2025_ Plaintiff, -against- 21-CV-10771 (MMG) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., = Defendants.

MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: On September 3, 2024, the Court granted pro se Plaintiff Wesley Alexander Hooks’ unopposed motion to dismiss Defendant Edwards, the last remaining defendant, from this action and closed this case. Dkt. No. 119. On April 30, 2025, nearly eight months after this case was closed, Mr. Hooks filed a motion seeking the appointment of a “Special Counselor” under 28 C.F.R. § 600.1 and a “face to face court appearance” before the undersigned. Dkt. No. 121. Mr. Hooks’ motion is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE because his requests are mooted by the fact that this case is closed. Further, even if this Court were to consider the substance of his requests: (1) His request for a special counsel would be denied for substantially the same reasons as Judge Koeltl’s denial of Mr. Hooks’ prior motion for the appointment of special counsel, see Dkt. No. 84; and (2) his request for a “face to face court appearance” would be denied for substantially the same reasons as the Court’s denial of Mr. Hooks’ prior request, see Dkt. No. 119. To the extent Mr. Hooks’ motion could be construed as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order closing this action, Dkt. No. 119, the Court does not find that Mr. Hooks has pointed to any evidence or controlling decisions that the Court overlooked, any clear error, or any manifest injustice which would justify reconsideration. See Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. □□□□□ Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992): see also Baker v. Dorfman, 239 F.3d 415, 427 (2d Cir. 2000) (regarding a district court’s broad discretion in assessing a motion for reconsideration); see generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Local Civ. R. 6.3. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. No. 121 and to mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Hooks. Because it appears Mr. Hooks has filed materials in support of his motion which include personally identifying information, i.e., his date of birth on his passport, the Clerk of Court is further respectfully directed to seal Dkt. No. 121. Dated: May 5, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

Z CT Ps MARGAR} ARNETT United States District Judge