Mitchell v. City of Poughkeepsie School District ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JASMINE MITCHELL, on behalf of J.C.M., Plaintiff, 19-CV-3879 (LLS) -against- ORDER CITY OF POUGHKEEPSIE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this action pro se. By order dated September 19, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. (ECF 5.) Judgment was entered on September 23, 2019. (ECF 6.) On December 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, (ECF 7, 8), and on January 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, (ECF 9). By order dated January 13, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal because the motion was filed more than 60 days after entry of judgment, and the Court therefore lacked authority to grant to the motion. (ECF 11 (citing Goode v. Winkler, 252 F.3d 242, 245 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider an untimely motion under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), even if the moving party can show good cause)). The Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal as moot. By Mandate issued June 15, 2020, the Court of appeals dismissed the appeal for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the appeal fees or to submit an application to proceed IFP to the Court of Appeals. (ECF 12). On October 21, 2021, more than two years after judgment was entered, Plaintiff filed an application for the court to request pro bono counsel. (ECF 14.)! Because the action is closed, the Court denies Plaintiff’s application as moot. CONCLUSION The Court denies Plaintiff’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel. (ECF 14.) The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 1, 2022 New York, New York LOUIS L. STANTON U.S.D.J. ' A duplicate copy of the application for the court to request pro bono counsel was mistakenly docketed as an application to proceed IFP. (See ECF 13.)