13-3123; 13-3088

Ligon, et al. v. City of New York, et al.; Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT

 

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

31st day of October, two thousand thirteen.

Present:

John M. Walker, Jr.,

José A. Cabranes,

Barrington D. Parker,

 Circuit Judges.

 

_____________________________________

Jaenean Ligon, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees.

v. 13-3123

City of New York, et al., (Corrected)

Defendants-Appellants,

 

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

 

David Floyd, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees.

v. 13-3088

City of New York, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants,

 

_____________________________________
2

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Appellants City of New York et al. seeking 

a stay of the District Court’s August 12, 2013 remedial order and preliminary injunction

(“Remedies Opinion”).

It is hereby ORDERED that the District Court’s January 8, 2013 “Opinion and Order,” as 

well as the August 12, 2013 “Liability Opinion” and “Remedies Opinion,” each of which may or 

will have the effect of causing actions to be taken by defendants or designees of the District 

Court, or causing restraints against actions that otherwise would be taken by defendants, are 

STAYED pending the disposition of these appeals.

The appeal by defendants in both (consolidated) actions shall continue in the normal 

course, under the following schedule:

Defendants shall perfect their appeals by January 24, 2014.

Plaintiffs shall file by February 28, 2014.

Defendants shall reply by March 14, 2014.

Oral argument shall be heard on a date after March 14, 2014, to be set by the Court in due 

course.

The cause is REMANDED to the District Court for the sole purpose of implementation of 

this Order, and the mandate shall otherwise remain with this Court until the completion of the 

appeals process. 

Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of 

the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 2 (“A judge should avoid impropriety and 

the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”); see also Canon 3(C)(1) (“A judge shall 

disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably 

be questioned . . . .”), and that the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation was 

compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s “related case rule,” see

Transfer of Related Cases, S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y. Local Rule 13(a),

1

and by a series of media 

 

1

In a proceeding on December 21, 2007 involving the parties in Daniels v. City of New York, No. 99 Civ. 

1695 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 8, 1999), the District Judge stated, “[I]f you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in 

a good constitutional case, why don’t you bring a lawsuit? You can certainly mark it as related.” She also stated, 

“[W]hat I am trying to say, I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it, for $65 you can bring that lawsuit.” 

She concluded the proceeding by noting, “And as I said before, I would accept it as a related case, which the 

plaintiff has the power to designate.” Two of the attorney groups working on behalf of plaintiffs in Daniels, a case
3

interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District 

Court.2

Accordingly, we conclude that, in the interest, and appearance, of fair and impartial 

administration of justice, UPON REMAND, these cases shall be assigned to a different District 

Judge, chosen randomly under the established practices of the District Court for the Southern 

District of New York. This newly-designated District Judge shall implement this Court’s 

mandate staying all proceedings and otherwise await further action by the Court of Appeals on 

the merits of the ongoing appeals.

In taking these actions, we intimate no view on the substance or merits of the pending 

appeals, which have yet to be fully briefed and argued.

The mandate shall ISSUE FORTHWITH for the sole purpose of implementation of this 

Order and shall otherwise remain in this Court. 

In the interest of judicial economy, any question, application, or further appeal regarding 

the scope of this Order or its implementation shall be directed to this panel, which will hear the 

case on the merits in due course. 

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

 

challenging the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practices, helped file Floyd the next month. See 

generally Joseph Goldstein, A Court Rule Directs Cases Over Friskings to One Judge, N.Y. Times, May 5, 2013. 

2

See, e.g., Mark Hamblett, Stop-and-Frisk Judge Relishes her Independence, N.Y. Law Journal, May 5, 

2013; Larry Neumeister, NY “Frisk” Judge Calls Criticism “Below-the-Belt,” The Associated Press, May 19, 2013; 

Jeffrey Toobin, A Judge Takes on Stop-and-Frisk, The New Yorker, May 27, 2013.