Exceptional Child Center, Inc. v. Richard Armstrong

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Exceptional Child Center, Inc. v. Richard Armstrong. Read the opinion of the Court — 567 F. App'x 496
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 5, 2015·No. 12-35382·Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CENTER, INC.; No. 12-35382 INCLUSION, INC.; TOMORROW’S HOPE SATELLITE SERVICES, INC.; D.C. No. WDB, INC.; LIVING INDEPENDENTLY 1:09-cv-00634- FOR EVERYONE, INC., BLW Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. ORDER AND AMENDED

RICHARD ARMSTRONG; LESLIE ORDER CLEMENT, Defendants-Appellants.

On Remand From The United States Supreme Court

Filed May 14, 2015 Amended June 5, 2015

Before: Richard C. Tallman and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges, and Stephen Joseph Murphy,* District Judge.

*

The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

2 EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CTR. V. ARMSTRONG

ORDER

The Idaho Attorney General’s Petition for Panel Rehearing is GRANTED. The order filed on May 14, 2015, is withdrawn and replaced with the accompanying amended order. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is therefore DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

AMENDED ORDER

The original decision entered by this court, reported at 567 F. App’x 496, was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court held that the Supremacy Clause does not provide an implied private right of action and that Medicaid providers do not otherwise have the ability to proceed in equity for enforcement of § 30(A) of the Medicaid Act. See Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has now specifically addressed the question our court had previously addressed, and the opinion upon which we relied, Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2008), is no longer valid and is overruled. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). In accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion, we vacate the district court’s injunction, and remand with direction to the district court to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

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

Exceptional Child Center, Inc. v. Richard Armstrong, (9th Cir. 2015).

Exceptional Child Center, Inc. v. Richard Armstrong (Exceptional Child Center, Inc. v. Richard Armstrong) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Exceptional Child Center, Inc. v. Richard Armstrong
567 F. App'x 496 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc.
575 U.S. 320 (Supreme Court, 2015)
Miller v. Gammie
335 F.3d 889 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)