Matthew Kiman, and United States, Intervenor v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections

First Circuit

Matthew Kiman, and United States, Intervenor v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections

310 F.3d 785, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23909, 2002 WL 31654566

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 2002

Docket02-1099

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 310 F.3d 785 (Matthew Kiman, and United States, Intervenor v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthew Kiman, and United States, Intervenor v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections, 310 F.3d 785, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23909, 2002 WL 31654566 (1st Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the En Banc Court

The petition for rehearing en banc is granted. The panel opinion of this court of August 20, 2002 is withdrawn and the judgment of this court of August 20, 2002 is vacated. Both sides and the intervenor United States are directed to file simultaneous supplementary briefs not to exceed 30 pages per side, which should assume the familiarity of the en banc court with the briefs already filed on this appeal and need not repeat arguments addressed therein. The supplemental briefing should address the Eleventh Amendment issues, with particular focus on the following:

1. Whether the state’s invocation of a sovereign immunity defense under the Eleventh Amendment may or should be analyzed as a facial challenge to the entire statute at issue rather than as applied to the facts at issue in the case at bar.

2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment constrains Congress, in addition to any relief it may provide under other statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, from acting under Title II of the ADA to: (a) provide a separate cause of action; (b) provide remedies, including damages, for such conduct, and; (c) define the standards of proof and defenses.

Ten copies of each brief should be filed by both sides within 30 days of the date of this order. Oral argument is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on January 6, 2003 in the en banc courtroom in the John Joseph Moak-ley U.S. Courthouse. The attention of counsel is drawn to the requirement of Loe. R. 32 as to the filing of briefs in disk form.

The court welcomes motions to file ami-cus briefs concerning any of the issues in ■this appeal.

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

Order of the En Banc Court

The petition for rehearing en banc is granted. The panel opinion of this court of August 20, 2002 is withdrawn and the judgment of this court of August 20, 2002 is vacated. Both sides and the intervenor United States are directed to file simultaneous supplementary briefs not to exceed 30 pages per side, which should assume the familiarity of the en banc court with the briefs already filed on this appeal and need not repeat arguments addressed therein. The supplemental briefing should address the Eleventh Amendment issues, with particular focus on the following:

1. Whether the state’s invocation of a sovereign immunity defense under the Eleventh Amendment may or should be analyzed as a facial challenge to the entire statute at issue rather than as applied to the facts at issue in the case at bar.

2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment constrains Congress, in addition to any relief it may provide under other statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, from acting under Title II of the ADA to: (a) provide a separate cause of action; (b) provide remedies, including damages, for such conduct, and; (c) define the standards of proof and defenses.

Ten copies of each brief should be filed by both sides within 30 days of the date of this order. Oral argument is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on January 6, 2003 in the en banc courtroom in the John Joseph Moak-ley U.S. Courthouse. The attention of counsel is drawn to the requirement of Loe. R. 32 as to the filing of briefs in disk form.

The court welcomes motions to file ami-cus briefs concerning any of the issues in ■this appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 F.3d 785, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23909, 2002 WL 31654566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-kiman-and-united-states-intervenor-v-new-hampshire-department-of-ca1-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack