Charles M. Keenan v. Frank Hall, Director Oregon Department of Corrections

135 F.3d 1318, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1050, 98 Daily Journal DAR 1469, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 1995, 1998 WL 51746
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 11, 1998
Docket94-35726
StatusPublished
Cited by361 cases

This text of 135 F.3d 1318 (Charles M. Keenan v. Frank Hall, Director Oregon Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charles M. Keenan v. Frank Hall, Director Oregon Department of Corrections, 135 F.3d 1318, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1050, 98 Daily Journal DAR 1469, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 1995, 1998 WL 51746 (9th Cir. 1998).

Opinion

ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REJECTING EN BANC REQUEST

ORDER

The opinion, Slip op. 5571, filed May 8, 1996 [83 F.3d 1083] is amended as follows: add a footnote to “major difference between the conditions for the general prison population and the segregated population” in line 2 on page 5578 [83 F.3d at 1089] of the Slip op.: “The Court expressed it thusly: ‘Based on a comparison between inmates inside and outside disciplinary segregation, the State’s actions in placing [Sandin] there for 30 days did not work a major disruption in his environment.’ Sandin at 486,115 S.Ct. at 2301.”

With this change, Judges Schroeder and Fletcher have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en bane. Judge Rymer voted to grant the petition for rehearing and to accept the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. Fed. R.App. P. 35(b).

Ihe petition tor rehearing is demed anc the suggestion for rehearing en banc is re jected.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hopkins v. C/O Childress
D. Montana, 2025
Wriden v. Arias
S.D. California, 2025
Wilson v. Macomber
S.D. California, 2025
Harris v. Pryor
D. Idaho, 2025
Hawn v. Clallam County Jail
W.D. Washington, 2025
Thiele v. Winkelman
D. Alaska, 2024
(PC) King v. Allison
E.D. California, 2023
(PC) Jones v. Benevious
E.D. California, 2023
(PC) Israel v. Giles
E.D. California, 2023
(PC) Mendoza v. Matteson
E.D. California, 2023
(PC) Russo v. Johnson
E.D. California, 2023
Nye v. Tapia
E.D. Washington, 2022
Cannata v. Hoag
W.D. Washington, 2022
Bosarge v. Brown
W.D. Washington, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 F.3d 1318, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1050, 98 Daily Journal DAR 1469, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 1995, 1998 WL 51746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-m-keenan-v-frank-hall-director-oregon-department-of-corrections-ca9-1998.