Hooks v. The City of New York
- Garnett
- 1:21-cv-10771
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hooks v. The City of New York, Judge Garnett denied with prejudice Hooks’s requests for special counsel and a face-to-face appearance because the case was closed.
Wesley Alexander Hooks’s requests for special counsel and a face-to-face court appearance were denied with prejudice; the motion was terminated and sealed. The case remained closed.
What happened
In Hooks v. The City of New York, the court had closed the case after granting Wesley Alexander Hooks’s unopposed request to dismiss the last remaining defendant. Hooks was representing himself.
Nearly eight months later, Hooks asked the court to appoint a special counselor and to hold a face-to-face appearance. The court said those requests were no longer live because the case was closed. It also said the requests would be denied for the same reasons as his earlier requests.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett denied Hooks’s motion with prejudice. She also said that, if the motion sought reconsideration of the order closing the case, Hooks had not identified a reason that would justify reconsideration. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, mail Hooks a copy of the order, and seal the motion because it included personally identifying information.
The detailed version
- Hooks v. The City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-10771
- Garnett
- May 5, 2025
Background
On September 3, 2024, the court granted pro se Plaintiff Wesley Alexander Hooks’s unopposed motion to dismiss Defendant Edwards, the last remaining defendant, and closed the case. On April 30, 2025, Hooks filed a motion seeking appointment of a “Special Counselor” under 28 C.F.R. § 600.1 and a “face to face court appearance” before Judge Garnett.
Court’s Reasoning
The court held that Hooks’s requests were moot because the case was closed. Moot means that a dispute no longer presents a live issue for the court to decide. The court added that, even if it considered the substance of the requests, it would deny the request for special counsel for substantially the same reasons given in the earlier denial of Hooks’s request for special counsel. It would deny the request for a face-to-face appearance for substantially the same reasons given in the earlier denial of that request.
The court also considered whether the motion could be understood as asking it to reconsider the order closing the case. It found that Hooks had not identified overlooked evidence or controlling decisions, clear error, or manifest injustice that would justify reconsideration under the applicable rules.
Disposition
Judge Margaret M. Garnett denied Hooks’s motion with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and mail Hooks a copy of the order. Because the motion appeared to include personally identifying information—specifically, Hooks’s date of birth on his passport—the clerk was also directed to seal the motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.