Michael Nozzi v. Hacla

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 29, 2016
• Docket: 13-56223
• Status: Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL NOZZI, an individual; No. 13-56223 NIDIA PELAEZ, an individual; LOS ANGELES COALITION TO END D.C. No. HUNGER AND HOMELESSNESS, a 2:07-cv-00380- non-profit organization, on behalf of GW-FFM themselves and similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, ORDER

v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; RUDOLPH MONTIEL, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

Filed January 29, 2016

Before: Stephen Reinhardt and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges and Miranda M. Du,* District Judge.

* The Honorable Miranda M. Du, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. 2 NOZZI V. HACLA

ORDER

The opinion filed November 30, 2015, and appearing at 806 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2015), is hereby amended as follows:

1. Slip op. at 47, line 2: after “to ‘preserve the appearance of justice’” but before the end of the sentence and the citation Id., insert: “and avoid any suggestion that the district judge originally assigned to the case designated the judge to whom the case is reassigned.”

2. Slip op. at 47, line 2: after the Id. citation that now follows the above amendment, insert the following footnote: “By this order, we imply no concern that the two judges would be less than fully objective and fair were the case reassigned to them. We are also aware that any assignment would be made in a random manner under the regular procedures of the district court and would in no way be influenced by Judge Wu’s suggestion. It is solely the public perception of unfairness that concerns us.”

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be entertained.

The petition for leave to file a late, oversized brief of amicus curiae on behalf of the Housing and Development Law Institute is also DENIED.