William Thornton v. Arnold Schwarzeneggar, et al
| WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON |
| ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGAR, Governor of California, MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of Corrections, LEWIS, John Doe, Parole Unit Supervisor, MARK JOSEPH, Parole Agent, CHRISTINE CAVALIN, Parole Agent and JOHN DOE, #1, Parole Agent |
| 11-56146 |
| July 11, 2011 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
 Thornton v. Brown
|
|
WILLIAM THORNTON V. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR
|
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
9025771821
Filed order and amended opinion (MYRON H. BRIGHT, SUSAN P. GRABER and SANDRA S. IKUTA). The opinion and dissenting opinion, filed on July 31, 2013, and published at 724 F.3d 1255, are replaced by the amended opinion and amended dissenting opinion filed concurrently with this order. With these amendments, Judges Bright and Graber have voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing, and Judge Ikuta has voted to grant it. Judge Graber has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Bright has so recommended. Judge Ikuta has voted to grant it. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge of the court called for a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. On such vote, a majority of the nonrecused active judges failed to vote in favor of en banc rehearing. The petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for panel rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc shall be entertained. ; Amending Disposition Opinion REVERSED AND REMANDED. [8980498]
|
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
