Jose Chavez, Andrew Morris, Matthew Jones, Thomas Furrh, Plaintiffs, v. BONTA (2026)

ORDER

General Order 3.6(d) sets forth the procedures to be followed by the Clerk's Office when a second appeal from the same underlying case is filed:

When a new appeal is taken to this Court from a district court or agency decision following a remand or other decision by an argument panel, the Clerk's Office will notify the panel that previously heard the case that the new appeal or petition is pending, and will provide a brief description of the issues presented. The prior panel is encouraged to accept a case that predominately involves the interpretation and application of the prior panel decision, except when it is impossible to reconstitute the prior panel․

Unfortunately, these procedures were not followed here. The Clerk's Office did not recognize that this is an appeal after remand of the same underlying case, failed to notify the previous panel, and assigned it to a newly constituted panel. This panel heard oral argument on June 23, 2026. Subsequently, it came to the attention of the Clerk's Office that this appeal was a second appeal from a previously remanded case and that the original panel should have been notified and given the opportunity to accept the appeal pursuant to General Order 3.6(d).

Our court has undertaken several steps to correct this mistake. First, the prior panel was notified of this appeal and has determined to accept it. Second, our court is taking internal measures to ensure that General Order 3.6(d) is strictly followed in the future. Third, this panel now vacates submission of this appeal and directs the Clerk to reassign this appeal to the previously constituted panel consisting of Judge Lee, Judge R.D. Nelson, and Senior District Judge Sidney H. Stein of the Southern District of New York.

It is so ORDERED.