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

31 st day of October, two thousand thirteen

.

Present: John M. Walker, Jr

.,

José A. Cabranes,

Ba rrington 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 the ir appeals by Jan uary 24 , 2014

.

Plaintiffs shall file by Feb ruary 28 , 2014

.

Defe ndants shall reply by Mar ch 14 , 2014

.

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

course.

The ca u se 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.

U pon 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 i mpropriety and
the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”) ; s ee 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 i m partiality 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 designa te.” Two of the attorney groups working on behalf of plaintiffs in Daniels , a case3

interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the Distric t

Court. 2

Accordingly

, we conclude that, in the interest

, and appearance

, of fair and impartial
administration of justice

, UPON REMAND

, these ca ses shall be assigned to a different District

J udge, chosen randomly under the established practices of the District Court for th e Southern

District of New York. This newly

- designated District Judge shall implement this Court’s

mandate staying all proceedings and otherwise await further actio n 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 o f 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 O ver Fri skings 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, 201 3; Jeffrey Toobin, A Judge Takes on Stop

- and

- Frisk , The New Yorker, May 27, 2013.