THOMAS JAMES WELCH, — v. THOMAS CAREY, WARDEN
341 F.3d 869, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 9521, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 17251, 2003 WL 22014585
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in THOMAS JAMES WELCH, — v. THOMAS CAREY, WARDEN. Read the opinion of the Court — 350 F.3d 1079 →
Opinion
ORDER
Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
THOMAS JAMES WELCH, — v. THOMAS CAREY, WARDEN, 341 F.3d 869, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 9521, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 17251, 2003 WL 22014585 (9th Cir. 2003).
341 F.3d 869 (THOMAS JAMES WELCH, — v. THOMAS CAREY, WARDEN) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Francisco Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, Erroneously Sued as Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
341 F.3d 869 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)