Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Schein Dl In

Schein Dl In

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4|Likes:
Published by Joe Palazzolo

More info:

Published by: Joe Palazzolo on Nov 18, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/04/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENTDocket Number(s)
: Caption [use short title]
Motion for:
Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought: 
MOVING PARTY: OPPOSING PARTY:
Plaintiff 
 
Defendant
Appellant/Petitioner
Appellee/Respondent
MOVING ATTORNEY: OPPOSING ATTORNEY
: [name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail] Court-Judge/Agency appealed from:
Please check appropriate boxes:FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS ANDINJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1):Has request for relief been made below?
 
Yes
 
 No
Yes
 No (explain): Has this relief been previously sought in this Court?
Yes
 No Requested return date and explanation of emergency: Opposing counsel’s position on motion:
Unopposed
 Opposed
 Dont Know Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:
 Yes
 No
 Dont Know Is oral argument on motion requested?
 
Yes
 
 No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)Has argument
 
date of appeal been set?
Yes
 
 No If yes, enter date:__________________________________________________________
Signature of Moving Attorney:
 ___________________________________ 
Date:
 ___________________Service by:
CM/ECF
Other [Attach proof of service]
 
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
 the motion is
GRANTED DENIED
.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of CourtDate: _____________________________________________By: _______________________________________________
Form T-1080
 (rev. 7-12)
Case: 13-3123 Document: 217 Page: 1 11/18/2013 1095294 115
13-3088 cv; 13-3123 cv
en banc reconsideration of order dated November 13, 2013 denying leave to appear as amici and reaffirmin
Floyd v. City of New York Ligon v. City of New Yorkproposed amici on behalf of District Jutechnicaly there is no opposing party
Burt NeuborneMichal Cardozo - City of New Yoras party in interest expressing opposition40 Washington Sq. South
New York City Law Department -100 Church St.
New York, New York 10012New York, New York 10007212 998 6172 - burt.neuborne@nyu.edu
212 788-0500 mcardozo@law.nyu.govnotice given earlier
 
 
ur euornes/ Burt neuborneNov. 18, 2013
 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Second Circuit  __________________________________________ David Floyd, Plaintiffs-Appellees 13-3088 v. City of New York, et al., Defendants-Appellants  __________________________________________  __________________________________________ Jaenean Ligon, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees 13-3123 v. (Corrected) City of New York, et al., Defendants-Appellants  __________________________________________ Motion for En Banc Reconsideration of Panel’s Amended Decision and Order, dated November 13, 2013 The undersigned respectfully move pursuant to Rule 35 F. R. App Proc. for en banc reconsideration of the amended order and decision of the Motion Panel herein, dated November 13, 2013, denying the undersigned, acting as proposed
amici curiae
,
 
leave to present objections to the
sua sponte
order of the Motion Panel herein directing removal the District Judge in
 David Floyd v. City of New York
(13-3088), and
 Jaenean Ligon, et al. v. City of New York et al.
(13-3123).
1
Case: 13-3123 Document: 217 Page: 2 11/18/2013 1095294 115
 
Copies of the amended order and opinion, dated November 13, 2013, are annexed hereto as Exhibits I and 2, respectively. Pursuant to F.R. App. Proc. 35(b) (1) (B), proposed
amici
represent that the Motion Panel’s opinion and order raises three questions of exceptional importance to the administration of justice in this Circuit warranting en banc re-consideration: 1.
 
Do procedures exist, analogous to procedures set forth in Rule 21(b)(4) F. R. App. Proc., enabling
amici curiae
to seek leave to present legal and factual objections to a
sua sponte
order of a motion panel directing removal of a District Judge. The Motion Panel ruled that no procedural protections whatever exist in connection with
sua sponte
orders of removal issued  pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2106.
 Amici
 believe that the minimal  procedural protection afforded a District Judge under Rule 21 (b) (4) should be recognized by implication and analogy in connection with
sua sponte
orders of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2106,  both as a matter of collegiality, and to assure that Circuit Judges are acquainted with the relevant facts and context before taking the drastic step of disqualifying a sitting district judge
sua sponte
. 2.
 
What is the standard for
sua sponte
 judicial disqualification of a district  judge under 28 U.S.C. §2106?
2
Case: 13-3123 Document: 217 Page: 3 11/18/2013 1095294 115

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->