Sun v. New York City Police Department
- Laura Swain
- 1:18-cv-11002
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sun v. New York City Police Department, Judge Swain denied recusal, denied a temporary restraining order as moot, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Yi Sun’s requests for recusal and a temporary restraining order were denied or found moot; the court also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order was filed in both matters.
What happened
Sun v. New York City Police Department and a related case against Saslovsky involved Yi Sun’s requests to disqualify the court, investigate alleged misconduct, and issue a temporary restraining order while the recusal request was considered.
The court said requests for review by the Department of Justice or the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts were improperly directed to it. It also said a judicial-conduct complaint under federal law should be filed with the circuit court’s clerk. The court found that Sun had not identified a proper basis for bias and that the temporary restraining order request, as directed to that court, was moot.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Sun’s recusal request and denied the temporary restraining order request as moot. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed that the order be filed in both cases.
The detailed version
- Sun v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:18-cv-11002
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 9, 2020
Background
Yi Sun filed an emergency motion seeking to recuse, or disqualify, the judge or judges. She also requested a temporary restraining order while the court considered that motion. The order applied to two matters: Sun v. New York City Police Department, No. 18 Civ. 11002 (LTS)(SN), and Sun v. Saslovsky, Esq. et al., No. 19 Civ. 10858 (LTS)(SN).
Requests Directed to Other Entities
To the extent Sun asked the Department of Justice or the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to review the facts supporting her allegations of misconduct by the court, the court said those requests were improperly directed to it and that it could not grant them. The court stated that Sun might direct applications or communications to those government entities.
The court also addressed Sun’s reference to 28 U.S.C. § 351 et seq., which provides a process for complaints alleging that a judge engaged in prejudicial conduct. The court said such a complaint is filed with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit and that Sun’s filing was improperly directed to the district court.
Recusal and Temporary Restraining Order
The court denied Sun’s request for recusal. It found that she had not identified a proper ground for accusing the court of bias. The court explained that any investigation of that accusation would occur separately from the case, that disagreement with a litigant’s legal position does not show improper bias, and that a series of unfavorable rulings does not establish bias or provide a reasonable basis to question the court’s impartiality. The court also found no factual basis for Sun’s allegation of a personal friendship between the judge and defendant Mo or a member of Mo’s family.
The court denied Sun’s request for a temporary restraining order pending consideration of the recusal motion as moot, insofar as the request was directed to that court.
Appeal and Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The order resolved docket entries 124 and 125 in the 18-Civ.-11002 matter and docket entry 57 in the 19-Civ.-10858 matter, and directed the clerk to file a copy in each case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.