Bradley v. Henry

Filing 920080228

Opinion

Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NICOLE BRADLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. GLORIA HENRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 04-15919 D.C. No. CV-03-03034-PJH ORDER AMENDING CONCURRING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING Filed February 29, 2008 Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Harry Pregerson, Warren J. Ferguson, John T. Noonan, Sidney R. Thomas, Barry G. Silverman, William A. Fletcher, Marsha S. Berzon, Richard C. Tallman, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges. ORDER The separate opinion by Judge Clifton concurring in the judgment filed on December 19, 2007 is amended as follows: At slip op., p. 16515, 510 F.3d 1093, 1099, insert the following footnote at the end of the first paragraph of the separate opinion: The plurality opinion has been joined by only five of the eleven judges on this limited en banc panel. Because that constitutes less than a majority of the 1799 1800 BRADLEY v. HENRY panel, that opinion does not announce the law of this circuit. The precedential effect of this decision does not extend beyond the conclusions expressed in this separate opinion, which concurs in the judgment on more narrow grounds. See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977). With this amendment, the petition for rehearing is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE--U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST--SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted 2008 Thomson/West.

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.


Why Is My Information Online?