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 Yi Sun’s reassignment and reconsideration requests and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Yi Sun’s requests to replace the assigned judges, obtain permission to file a “Verified Criminal Complaint,” reconsider the earlier recusal ruling, and proceed with an appeal without paying fees were denied or rejected as misdirected.
What happened
In Sun v. New York City Police Department, Yi Sun asked to reassign the case, sought permission to file a “Verified Criminal Complaint,” and claimed a law allowing jury-selection challenges permitted her to change the assigned judges.
The court explained that allegations of misconduct by judges should be directed to the Second Circuit’s court clerk, and that the request to file a criminal complaint was directed to the wrong court. It also ruled that the jury-selection law did not allow a litigant to replace the district or magistrate judge.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for peremptory challenges and denied reconsideration of an earlier order refusing recusal. She also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order after certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Sun v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:18-cv-11002
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 21, 2021
Background
The court reviewed Yi Sun’s motion for a “Peremptory Challenge,” supporting declaration and proposed order, and a letter seeking reassignment and permission to file a “Verified Criminal Complaint.” Sun asserted that she had previously submitted copies of the challenge motions but that they had not appeared on the docket.
Reassignment and Peremptory Challenges
Sun sought reassignment based on allegations that the court was prejudiced against her. The court repeated that a request alleging misconduct by the assigned judges was improperly directed to that court and should instead be directed to the clerk of the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 351(a). The court likewise stated that the request for permission to file a “Verified Criminal Complaint” was directed to the wrong court.
Sun also relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1870, which gives civil litigants three peremptory challenges for use during jury selection. The court held that this statute does not apply to selecting or replacing the presiding district judge or magistrate judge. Because Sun provided no authority supporting a contrary interpretation, the court denied the motion for lack of a proper legal basis.
Reconsideration
The court treated the proposed order’s request for recusal as a motion to reconsider the court’s October 9, 2020, order denying recusal. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally requiring an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court found that Sun identified no legal or factual basis meeting that standard and denied the motion for reconsideration.
Appeal and Disposition
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order resolved Docket Entry No. 144. This order addressed the requested reassignment and related motions; it did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.