From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Curiel v. Miller

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug 25, 2015
798 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 11–56949.

2015-08-25

Freddy CURIEL, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Amy MILLER, Warden, Respondent–Appellee.

Jan Burns Norman, Attorney at Law, Davis, CA, for Petitioner–Appellant. Freddy Curiel, pro se.


Jan Burns Norman, Attorney at Law, Davis, CA, for Petitioner–Appellant.Freddy Curiel, pro se.
Kyle Niki Shaffer, Deputy Attorney General, Kevin Vienna, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Angela Borzachillo, Office of the Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner–Appellant.

ORDER


, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35–3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Pregerson did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.


Summaries of

Curiel v. Miller

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug 25, 2015
798 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

Curiel v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:Freddy CURIEL, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Amy MILLER, Warden…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Date published: Aug 25, 2015

Citations

798 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2015)

Citing Cases

Curiel v. Miller

There, I joined the panel's decision that reached a different result from the one we reach as an en banc…