Hooks v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 16 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-CV-10771 (JGK) |
| Parties | WESLEY ALEXANDER HOOKS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
The pro se plaintiff, Wesley Alexander Hooks, brought this action against the City of New York (the “City"), the New York City Police Department (“NYPD"), the NYPD's 13th Precinct, NYPD Officer Tara A. Convery, the Legal Aid Society (“Legal Aid"), Stephen Edwards, Adam Neal, Jamie Niskanen-Singer, Kenmore & Associates LP (“Kenmore"), and Ralph Garcia, alleging various violations of his constitutional rights in connection with his February 16, 2020 arrest and related prosecution. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the “Complaint") against these defendants on January 25, 2022. See ECF No. 3.
Niskanen-Singer Legal Aid, Kenmore, Garcia, and the City have moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The City also seeks the dismissal of the claims against Convery on the same grounds, and it has requested that this Court abstain from adjudicating the case under the Colorado River doctrine. See Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). The plaintiff has cross-moved for the appointment of special counsel, and the plaintiff has moved separately for summary judgment on all of his claims.
The following facts are taken from the Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes of the motions to dismiss.[1]
The plaintiff alleges that on or about February 16, 2020, he walked into the NYPD's 13th Precinct to execute an order of protection against his ex-girlfriend, Chantal Myrick. See Compl. at 11.[2] The plaintiff allegedly showed one of the NYPD officers certain videos of his ex-girlfriend "extorting" him, "trying to [b]lackmail" him, and threatening him with violence, "but to no avail." Id. Instead, two NYPD desk officers informed him that they were aware of a pending bench warrant for his arrest. Id. The plaintiff alleges that NYPD officer Convery then "falsely arrested and kidnapped" him. Id. The Complaint indicates that after this alleged false arrest, the plaintiff was released on his own recognizance and prosecuted in state court on charges related to his treatment of his ex-girlfriend Myrick. Id.; see also id. at 13 (); id. at 16 ().
The plaintiff also alleges that at some point during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Convery illegally entered and searched the plaintiff's apartment at 145 East 23rd Street, New York, New York, while the plaintiff was visiting his friend Horace Bradford in Jersey City, New Jersey. Id. at 12. Convery was accompanied by Garcia, an employee of the Kenmore property where the plaintiff resided.[3] Id. The plaintiff alleges that Convery and Garcia “searched[,] seized[,] and deleted evidence from [the plaintiff's] flash drives, [his] portable hard drives, and [his] laptops” without any warrant. Id. at 12-13. According to the plaintiff, the seized evidence would have “vind[i]cated [him] of all allege[d] wrongdoing" against Myrick. Id. at 13.
After the alleged search, the plaintiff approached Garcia and asked whether the NYPD had produced a warrant to enter his residence. See id. Garcia “denied that the [NYPD] ever [went] into [the plaintiff's] apartment." Id. However, the plaintiff's neighbor allegedly told the plaintiff that the NYPD had entered the plaintiff's apartment at least twice, once in April 2020 and again in May 2020. Id. at 13-14.
The Complaint suggests that at some time before mid-2021, the plaintiff moved out of New York and into a residence with Bradford in Jersey City. The plaintiff alleges that in July 2021, while he and Bradford were absent from the Jersey City apartment, the NYPD illegally entered and searched the unit in order to "destroy more evidence." See id. at 20.
The plaintiff also alleges that since the time of his false arrest in February 2020, the NYPD has been “wiretapping all of [his] cell phones" and blocking the plaintiff's communications with his criminal-defense attorneys. Id. at 14. The plaintiff adds that the NYPD has rewritten his text messages, redirected his calls, and prevented him from accessing his voicemail, his social media accounts, and the internet. See id. at 14-15, 27. The NYPD allegedly “destroyed 22 cell phones" belonging to the plaintiff, not including two cell phones “confi[s]cated" when the plaintiff was “falsely arrested," and the NYPD allegedly “clone[s]" any new cell phone that the plaintiff purchases in order to "control" his means of communication. Id. at 14.
The Complaint also contains allegations concerning the conduct of Niskanen-Singer, Edwards, and Neal, three criminal-defense attorneys who were appointed to represent the plaintiff at various times in the state criminal proceedings against him. As relevant here, the plaintiff alleges that Niskanen-Singer, a court-appointed Legal Aid attorney, approached the plaintiff with a plea agreement even though the plaintiff had directed Niskanen-Singer "not to come to [him] with a plea offer." Id. at 16. The plaintiff claims that Niskanen-Singer therefore "waived [the plaintiff's] rights to a jury trial . . . without [his] consent." Id.
Neal eventually replaced Niskanen-Singer as the plaintiff's defense counsel, and Edwards later replaced Neal. See id. at 21, 23. The plaintiff's own allegations suggest that the plaintiff proceeded to trial on the charges against him, indicating that the alleged plea deal was never accepted. See, e.g., id. at 24 ().
The plaintiff initiated this action against the defendants on December 16, 2021, see ECF No. 1, and he subsequently filed an amended complaint on January 25, 2022, see ECF No. 3. That amended complaint, which is the Complaint at issue here, details the allegations set forth above and seeks money damages from the defendants for “violating [the plaintiff's] civil rights, [and] [his] constitutional rights." Compl. at 12, 26-27.
The plaintiff served many, but not all, of the defendants between late January and early February 2022. The plaintiff did not serve Legal Aid during that time, and his attempt to serve Convery failed. See ECF No. 9. Of the various defendants who were properly served, only Edwards filed an answer to the Complaint. See ECF No. 15.
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 22, 2022 (“March 2022 Order"), this Court dismissed the claims against the 13th Precinct and the NYPD because the New York City Charter provides that such “organizational subdivision[s] of the City" are not independently suable. ECF No. 18 at 1-2; see Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, n.19 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court also noted that the plaintiff had “not yet served Tara Convery" in this action, and the Court "reminded the plaintiff" that the failure to effectuate timely service might result in dismissal of the claims against Convery “for failure to prosecute." ECF No. 18 at 3.[4] In the ensuing months, several defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Legal Aid and Niskanen-Singer filed their motion on May 13, 2022, see ECF No. 29 ("Legal Aid Motion to Dismiss"), the City followed with a motion on June 16, 2022, see ECF No. 34 ("City Motion to Dismiss"), and Kenmore and Garcia brought their motion on July 15, 2022, see ECF No. 45 ("Kenmore Motion to Dismiss").
On July 19, 2022, the plaintiff submitted a series of papers reiterating his allegations against the defendants. See ECF Nos. 50-52. The plaintiff also alleged that the NYPD has been preventing him from "obtaining [his] own attorney," and he asked the Court to appoint a "Special Prosecutor" pursuant to a regulation identified as "18 CFR § 600.1." ECF No. 50 at 3. As relevant here, the Court construed these submissions as (1) the plaintiff's opposition to the Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, and (2) a cross-motion for the appointment of special counsel. See ECF No. 53.
On August 29, 2022, before the defendants replied to the plaintiff's opposition to the motions to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a document titled "Motion for Summary Judgment." See ECF No. 60. However, that submission appeared to be missing many of the exhibits that the plaintiff intended to file to prove his claims, and the argument primarily focused on the plaintiff's objections to the defendants' requests for certain extensions of time. See id. at 1-2. Not long after that filing, the defendants submitted their replies in support of the motions to dismiss.[5]See ECF Nos. 62, 64. The plaintiff then brought another motion, this time asking the Court to decide his claims "based on . . . factual [d]iscovery" and various "[e]xhibits" appended to the submission. ECF No. 68, at 1. The Court construed that motion and the supporting exhibits as "a motion for summary judgment," and ordered the defendants to respond. ECF No. 69.
On September 27, 2022, the plaintiff filed a submission requesting that the Court "grant [his] motion under 18 CFR [§] 600.1" for the appointment of "Special Counsel."[6] ECF No. 72. In early October, Legal Aid, Niskanen-Singer, and the City opposed that motion. See ECF Nos. 74, 75. The City's letter submission also asked this Court to stay consideration of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment pending resolution of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial