Scott Clabourne v. Charles Ryan

868 F.3d 753, 2017 WL 3259664, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13947
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 1, 2017·No. 09-99022·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

: Concurrence by Judges CLIFTON and IKUTA; ':

Dissent by

Judge BERZON

ORDER

Judges Clifton and Ikuta have voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Berzon has voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing.

Judge Ikuta has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Clifton so recommends. Judge Berzon has voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are therefore DENIED.

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

Scott Clabourne v. Charles Ryan, 868 F.3d 753, 2017 WL 3259664, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13947 (9th Cir. 2017).

868 F.3d 753 (Scott Clabourne v. Charles Ryan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kyle Rodney v. Timothy Filson
916 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)