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 reconsideration and declined to entertain injunction requests directed at the court.
Yi Sun’s requests for disqualification, reassignment, injunctive relief, and reconsideration in the two captioned matters; the order also affects any appeal from this order because permission to appeal without paying filing fees was denied.
What happened
In Sun v. New York City Police Department, Yi Sun asked the court to disqualify and restrain all actions by the court and Magistrate Judge Netburn. The order was filed in two captioned matters involving Sun.
The court said disqualification complaints should be directed to the clerk of the court of appeals, not the district court. It treated Sun’s request to use peremptory challenges to reassign the cases as a request to reconsider an earlier order and found no legal or factual basis for changing that order.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for reconsideration. The court also said it would not entertain injunctive relief directed at the undersigned judge, denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, and directed the clerk to file the order in both matters.
The detailed version
- Sun v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:18-cv-11002
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 8, 2021
Background
The order concerns two matters captioned Yi Sun v. New York City Police Department, No. 18 Civ. 11002 (LTS)(SN), and Yi Sun v. Saslovsky, Esq. et al., No. 19 Civ. 10858 (LTS)(SN). The court received Sun’s January 21, 2021 letter seeking to disqualify and restrain “all actions” of the court and Magistrate Judge Netburn through a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Disqualification and Injunctive Relief
The court reiterated that requests to disqualify the district court should be directed to the clerk of the court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 351(a). It explained that filing such a request does not automatically prevent the assigned district judge from continuing to preside, and that the court had not been informed of any action by the court of appeals changing the assignment. To the extent Sun sought injunctive relief directed at Judge Swain, the court stated that it would not entertain the request.
Reconsideration
To the extent Sun sought to use peremptory challenges to reassign the matters from Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Netburn, the court construed the letter as a motion for reconsideration of its January 21, 2021 order denying Sun’s request to exercise peremptory challenges. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and requires a showing of an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court had previously rejected Sun’s recusal request because she had not identified a proper basis for alleging judicial bias. The court stated that Sun identified no legal or factual basis justifying reconsideration and denied the motion for reconsideration.
Appeal and Filing Instructions
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to file the order in both captioned matters and provide a copy to Sun.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.