Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 9, 2020

Sun v. Saslovsky, Esq.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:19-cv-10858
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Sun v. Saslovsky, Judge Swain denied recusal, denied a temporary restraining order as moot, and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Yi Sun’s requests for recusal, a temporary restraining order, review by other government entities, and fee-free appeal status; the order was entered in Sun’s two cases involving the New York City Police Department and Saslovsky, Esq., among other defendants.

What happened

In Sun v. Saslovsky and the related case against the New York City Police Department, Yi Sun asked the court to remove the judge, investigate alleged misconduct, and issue a temporary restraining order while considering those requests.

The court said requests for review by the Department of Justice or the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts were improperly directed to that court. It also explained that a judicial-conduct complaint under federal law should be filed with the clerk of the appropriate federal appeals court.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Sun’s request for recusal because Sun did not identify a proper basis for finding bias. The judge denied the temporary restraining-order request as moot insofar as it was directed to the court, and denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sun v. Saslovsky, Esq. · No. 1:19-cv-10858
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Oct. 9, 2020

Background

The order concerns two related cases brought by Yi Sun: one against the New York City Police Department and other defendants, and one against Saslovsky, Esq. and other defendants. The court reviewed Sun’s emergency motion seeking to disqualify or recuse the judge, along with requests for a temporary restraining order while the recusal request was considered.

Requests concerning other government entities

To the extent Sun asked the Department of Justice or the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to review facts underlying allegations of misconduct by the court, the court stated that those requests were improperly directed to it and that it could not grant them. The court also stated that a complaint alleging prejudicial conduct by a judge under 28 U.S.C. § 351(a) should be filed with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit, rather than with the district court.

Recusal and temporary restraining order

The court denied Sun’s request for recusal. It found that Sun had not identified a proper ground for the accusation of bias. The court explained that disagreement with a litigant’s legal position and a series of unfavorable rulings do not, by themselves, establish improper 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 as moot, insofar as the request was directed to that court.

Appeal-related ruling 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-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order resolved docket entries 124 and 125 in the New York City Police Department case and docket entry 57 in the Saslovsky case, and directed the clerk to file a copy in each case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.