Hooks v. The City of New York
- Rearden
- 1:21-cv-10771
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hooks v. City of New York, Judge Rearden denied Hooks’s motions to involve the United States, pause enforcement, and enter default judgment.
The order directly affected pro se plaintiff Wesley Alexander Hooks and pro se defendant Stephen Edwards. It denied Hooks’s requested intervention, stay, and default judgment, while leaving the court’s underlying constitutional claims unresolved in this order.
What happened
In Hooks v. City of New York, pro se plaintiff Wesley Alexander Hooks alleged that attorney Stephen Edwards violated his constitutional rights during Hooks’s arrest and related prosecution. Hooks asked the United States to intervene and sought other relief against Edwards.
Judge Rearden ruled that the rule Hooks cited for government intervention applies only when a party challenges a statute’s constitutionality, which Hooks’s complaint did not do. She also rejected default judgment because Edwards had appeared and filed an answer, even though it was six days late, and rejected a request to pause enforcement because no judgment had been entered.
The court denied both motions. Judge Rearden also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that purpose.
The detailed version
- Hooks v. The City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-10771
- Rearden
- Oct. 4, 2023
Background
Pro se plaintiff Wesley Alexander Hooks brought constitutional-rights claims related to his February 16, 2020 arrest and related prosecution. The order addresses attorney Stephen Edwards, the remaining defendant discussed in the ruling. Hooks had voluntarily dismissed the other named defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), and the court stated that those dismissals terminated them because they had not filed an answer or moved for summary judgment. Edwards remained because he had filed an answer.
Motion to Involve the United States
Hooks asked the United States to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 so that it could present evidence for him. The court explained that Rule 5.1 applies when a filing challenges the constitutionality of a federal or state statute. Hooks’s complaint alleged that Edwards’s actions violated Hooks’s constitutional rights, but it did not allege that a statute was unconstitutional. The court therefore denied Hooks’s motion for intervention.
Request for a Stay and Default Judgment
Hooks also requested a stay under Rule 62, which concerns pausing enforcement of a judgment, and default judgment under Rule 55. The court denied default judgment because Edwards had appeared and filed an answer on March 3, 2022, six days after the answer was due. The court found that the short delay did not justify default judgment and that Hooks could not credibly show prejudice or a willful delay.
The court separately denied the Rule 62 request because no judgment had been entered against any party, making that rule inapplicable.
Disposition
Judge Rearden denied both of Hooks’s motions: the motion for “Intervention by the United States” and the motion for a “Stay of the Proceedings to Enforce the Judgment” and for “Default Judgment.” The court directed the clerk to terminate the two motions. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that purpose.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.