The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit made yet another non-precedential decision against Mr. Neroni, which it had not right to do under its Article III power

I was alerted by a friend today that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has issued a "summary order" on my husband's pro se appeal in his pro se case Neroni v. Coccoma, a shameful case where a federal court connected with multiple ties to the defendants and their law firms made a decision for law firms under circumstances clearly suggesting disqualifying conflicts of interest.  My husband did not receive a copy of the decision in the mail yet. 

Yet, the 2nd Circuit swept the case of potential judicial corruption under the rug under the guise that a judge is allegedly the arbiter of his own recusal.  Not in federal court, where such a recusal is governed by federal statute and by federal Constitution.   

The federal appellate court, instead of doing its job and providing a proper review on the appeal of Mr. Neroni's civil rights case, did what it usually does on civil rights appeals - did a "summary order", most likely without reading the record, and providing a 2-page decision (it is actually a 4.1 page decision, but 2 pages were taken by the caption) which the court finds not binding upon itself in the future (non-precedential).

That was in denial of Mr. Neroni's right to a full analysis, full appellate review (as of right!) and full precedential decision with a de novo review of all issues upon which the appeal was made.

Legal scholars have been in an active debate for quite some time that the policy of making "non-precedential" decisions on federal appeals, and especially targeting civil rights appeal for this "practice" and "policy", is in violation of federal court's grant of power under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, and are violating litigants' due process, equal protection and access to courts rights.

Moreover, the court refused to certify questions of state law that the lower federal district court resolved instead of the highest New York court, and while resolution of the federal question heavily relied upon issues of state law.

I understand that the courts are either lazy, or overwhelmed with cases, or both.  But, if they take people's filing fees and pretend that it is an appeal as of right, the review of the appeal should be fit to the appeal "as of right" and should result in a precedential decision.

Of course, in this particular case where the lower court heavily catered for the wife of a high-ranking New York State judge, and at the time when Mr. Neroni raised issues of misconduct of the New York State Attorney General where the district court judge's son is employed, the appellate court may not have wanted to touch this case with a 10-foot fishing pole and to create a precedential decision.

But, if one does not want to do one's designated job, one should step down and let other people to do that.  Otherwise one is violating one's oath of office.

I will blog later about what Mr. Neroni will do in furtherance of his case.