Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 30, 2020

Sun v. New York City Police Department

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:18-cv-11002
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
14
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Sun v. New York City Police Department, Judge Swain required proper filing methods, rejected email requests, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing costs.

Who this affects

Yi Sun, who was litigating without a lawyer, was required to use the court’s filing system for future requests and was denied permission to appeal without paying filing costs. The Clerk of Court was directed to file the order in both matters.

What happened

Sun v. New York City Police Department and a related case concern Yi Sun’s communications about notices of appeal and alleged payments for appellate fees. Sun asked to show original payment receipts and to review courthouse-lobby surveillance video.

The court instructed Sun to file, rather than email, any future communications or requests for judicial action. The court said that copies of payment instruments had been filed with the Second Circuit, but no original payment instruments were found in material deposited in the Southern District of New York’s drop box. It advised Sun to contact the Post Office or bank and said documentation showing that the instruments had been negotiated could be submitted to the district court clerk for further review.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing costs. The order did not state a separate ruling on Sun’s request to review surveillance video.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sun v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:18-cv-11002
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Oct. 30, 2020

Background

The court issued an amended order in two cases brought by Yi Sun. The order addressed two emails Sun sent on October 23, 2020, which appeared to supplement an earlier letter seeking confirmation that her notices of appeal and alleged payments had been received. Sun requested an opportunity to show original receipts and asked to review surveillance video of activity in the courthouse lobby.

Filing instructions

The court instructed Sun to file, rather than email, any further communications to the court. It cited Rule (A)(1)(a)(i) of the court’s Individual Practices, which requires letters to be filed through the Electronic Case Files system. The court stated that it would not accept communications or requests for judicial action by email.

Payment issue

The court said it had made inquiries after Sun’s earlier letter. According to the order, documents Sun filed with the Second Circuit on September 28, 2020, included copies of payment instruments. Two were payable to the Clerk of the Second Circuit, and one was payable jointly to the Clerk of the Second Circuit and the Clerk of the Southern District of New York. The court stated that no original payment instruments were included with those filings.

The court also repeated that no payment instruments were found among the materials Sun deposited in the Southern District of New York drop box on October 3, 2020. It encouraged Sun to contact the Post Office about tracing or replacing the money orders and to contact her bank about whether the check had been cashed or could be replaced. The order stated that, if Sun obtained documentation showing that the instruments had been negotiated, she could submit that documentation to the Southern District of New York Clerk of Court for further review. The order did not make a separate ruling granting or denying the request to review surveillance video.

Appeal-cost ruling and disposition

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Sun permission to appeal without paying the required filing costs. The Clerk of Court was directed to file the order in both captioned matters, and chambers was directed to provide Sun with a copy.

This order addressed filing procedures, payment documentation, and appeal-cost status. It did not decide the underlying claims in either case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 14-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.