Ligon ex rel. J.G. v. City of New York
736 F.3d 118
2d Cir.2013Background
- 5–6 sentences of legally material facts only; procedural posture summarized: Court addresses appearance of impartiality concerns arising from Judge Scheindlin's remarks and media interviews during Floyd/Ligón proceedings and related cases, leading to reassignment under 28 U.S.C. §455(a).
- Procedural posture: district court remedies order in Floyd/Ligón pending; panels stayed orders on appeal and reassigned to random judge; opinion supersedes prior stay order.
- Merits not at issue; focus is reassignment basis and appearance of justice rather than merits.
- Record shows Daniels hearing colloquy suggesting a related-filed suit and potential outcome, plus public media interviews affecting public perception.
- Court clarifies it makes no finding of misconduct, only appearance-of-impartiality concerns warranting reassignment.
- Appendix A–D provide the procedural history and media context behind the reassignment decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §455(a) requires disqualification given appearance of impartiality. | Scheindlin’s conduct created appearance of bias. | No explicit misconduct; reassignment is discretionary to preserve appearance. | Yes; reassignment warranted to preserve appearance of justice. |
| Whether the related-cases rule and related-cases designation contributed to appearance problems. | Related-case designation facilitated appearance of special handling. | Rule 13/related-case practice is routine efficiency; not inherently biased. | Reassignment appropriate to avoid appearance concerns. |
| Whether the court could sua sponte order reassignment without a party motion. | N/A or not asserted; record shows appearance concerns. | Appellate courts may sua sponte order reassignment to protect appearance of impartiality. | Within appellate discretion to ensure appearance of justice. |
| Whether any misconduct by Judge Scheindlin was found. | Any improper statements undermine impartiality. | No finding of misconduct required under §455. | No misconduct found; only appearance concerns justifying reassignment. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Boston’s Children First, 244 F.3d 164 (1st Cir. 2001) (recusal/appearance of impropriety standards discussed by multiple circuits)
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1988) (appearance-of-justice considerations in reassignment decisions)
- United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2006) (reassignment as remedy when impartiality questioned; transcript concerns)