Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-56223/USCOURTS-ca9-13-56223-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL NOZZI, an individual;

NIDIA PELAEZ, an individual; LOS

ANGELES COALITION TO END

HUNGER AND HOMELESSNESS, a

non-profit organization, on behalf of

themselves and similarly situated

persons,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY

OF LOS ANGELES; RUDOLPH

MONTIEL, in his official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-56223

D.C. No.

2:07-cv-00380-

GW-FFM

ORDER

Filed January 29, 2016

Before: Stephen Reinhardt and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit

Judges and Miranda M. Du,* District Judge.

* The Honorable Miranda M. Du, District Judge for the U.S. District

Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

 Case: 13-56223, 01/29/2016, ID: 9845907, DktEntry: 56, Page 1 of 2
2 NOZZI V. HACLA

ORDER

The opinion filed November 30, 2015, and appearing at

806 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2015), is hereby amended as follows:

1. Slip op. at 47, line 2: after “to ‘preserve the appearance of

justice’” but before the end of the sentence and the citation

Id., insert: “and avoid any suggestion that the district judge

originally assigned to the case designated the judge to whom

the case is reassigned.”

2. Slip op. at 47, line 2: after the Id. citation that now

follows the above amendment, insert the following footnote: 

“By this order, we imply no concern that the two judges

would be less than fully objective and fair were the case

reassigned to them. We are also aware that any assignment

would be made in a random manner under the regular

procedures of the district court and would in no way be

influenced by Judge Wu’s suggestion. It is solely the public

perception of unfairness that concerns us.”

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the

petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en

banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for

rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on

whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. 

The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are

DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or petitions for

rehearing en banc will be entertained.

The petition for leave to file a late, oversized brief of

amicus curiae on behalf of the Housing and Development

Law Institute is also DENIED.

 Case: 13-56223, 01/29/2016, ID: 9845907, DktEntry: 56, Page 2 of 2