Case Name: Kelvin DANIELS, Poseidon Baskin, Djibril Toure, Hector Rivera, Raymond Ramirez, Kahil Shkymba, Bryan Stair, Tiara Bonner, Theron McConneyhead, and Horace Rogers, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor, Howard Safir, New York City Police Commissioner, City Police Officers John Does 1-500, and Anthony Curtin, New York City Police Officer, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellants, Peter Mante, New York City Police Sergeant; Walter Doyle, New York City Police Officer, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-12
Citations: 13 F. App'x 20
Docket Number: No. 01-7469
Parties: Kelvin DANIELS, Poseidon Baskin, Djibril Toure, Hector Rivera, Raymond Ramirez, Kahil Shkymba, Bryan Stair, Tiara Bonner, Theron McConneyhead, and Horace Rogers, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor, Howard Safir, New York City Police Commissioner, City Police Officers John Does 1-500, and Anthony Curtin, New York City Police Officer, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellants, Peter Mante, New York City Police Sergeant; Walter Doyle, New York City Police Officer, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.
Judges: Present CABRANES, STRAUB and SACK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 13
Pages: 20–21

Head Matter:
Kelvin DANIELS, Poseidon Baskin, Djibril Toure, Hector Rivera, Raymond Ramirez, Kahil Shkymba, Bryan Stair, Tiara Bonner, Theron McConneyhead, and Horace Rogers, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor, Howard Safir, New York City Police Commissioner, City Police Officers John Does 1-500, and Anthony Curtin, New York City Police Officer, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellants, Peter Mante, New York City Police Sergeant; Walter Doyle, New York City Police Officer, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.
No. 01-7469.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 12, 2001.
Gail Donoghue; Michael D. Hess, Heidi Grossman, Linda Donahue, Kristin Bran-son, Alan G. Krams, Scott Shorr, of counsel, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for appellants.
Jonathan C. Moore, Law Offices of Jonathan C. Moore, Nancy Chang, William H. Goodman, Center for Constitutional Rights, Adam D. Gale, Jennifer R. Cowan, Charles P. Reichmann, Jonathan Boyarín, Alison L. LaCroix, Debevoise & Plimpton, Robert F. Van Lierop, Van Lierop, Burns & Bassett, New York, NY, for appellees.
Present CABRANES, STRAUB and SACK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order, granting defendants' petition for leave to appeal and staying discovery, is VACATED; the present appeal is therefore DISMISSED.
Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for alleged constitutional violations by a unit of the New York City Police Department known as the Street Crime Unit. In a January 25, 2001 opinion and order, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class for injunctive and declaratory relief. See Daniels v. City of N.Y., 198 F.R.D. 409 (S.D.N.Y.2001).
On March 26, 2001, defendants filed a petition with this Court for leave to appeal the District Court's certification order. In a May 1, 2001 order, we granted this petition and stayed discovery until further notice by this Court. Subsequently, we modified the order to stay discovery of only an unredacted version of a police database known as the UF-230 Database.
Upon due reflection and a full consideration of the merits of this appeal, we hold that the May 1, 2001 order granting defendants' petition for leave to appeal and staying discovery was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we VACATE this order. Cf Rezzonico v. H & R Block, Inc., 182 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir.1999) (holding that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not preclude an appellate court from reconsidering a decision by a prior motions panel). The present appeal is therefore DISMISSED, without prejudice to our consideration at a later time of the issues raised in the instant appeal.