From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKinney v. Ryan

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 12, 2014
745 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 09–99018.

2014-03-12

James Erin McKINNEY, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, Respondent–Appellee.

Ivan K. Mathew, Susan T. Mathew, Esquire, Mathew and Associates, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner–Appellant. Jon Anderson, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent–Appellee.


Ivan K. Mathew, Susan T. Mathew, Esquire, Mathew and Associates, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner–Appellant. Jon Anderson, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent–Appellee.

ORDER


KOZINSKI, 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.

Judges Silverman, Murguia and Hurwitz did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.


Summaries of

McKinney v. Ryan

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 12, 2014
745 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

McKinney v. Ryan

Case Details

Full title:JAMES ERIN MCKINNEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHARLES L. RYAN…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 12, 2014

Citations

745 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

McKinney v. Ryan

We granted rehearing en banc and withdrew our three-judge panel opinion. McKinney v. Ryan, 745 F.3d 963 (9th…

Johnson v. Shinn

(Ex. EE). Petitioner alleged newly discovered material facts and a significant change in the law, claiming…