Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Nicholson et al

Filing 283

ORDER DISMISSING CASE pursuant to 279 USCA Memorandum. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 07/20/2012. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2012)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE and
VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC.,

7
8

Plaintiffs,

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

v.
10
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, et al.,

11
12

Defendants.
13

) Case No. 07-3758-SC
)
) ORDER DISMISSING CASE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14
On June 25, 2008, this Court issued a decision which dismissed

15
16

the instant case, in part for lack of jurisdiction and in part on

17

the merits.

18

Common Sense v. Peake, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2008)).

19

Plaintiffs Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth,

20

Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") appealed to the Ninth Circuit

21

Court of Appeals.

22

affirmed this Court's decision in part, reversed it in part, and

23

remanded for further proceedings.

24

Shinseki, 644 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2011).1

25

the Ninth Circuit granted Defendants' motion for rehearing en banc.

26

1

27
28

ECF No. 238 ("Decision") (published as Veterans for

ECF No. 242.

A three-judge appellate panel

Veterans for Common Sense v.
Before remand, however,

Plaintiffs sued individual Defendants, including the lead
defendant, James B. Peake, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in their
official capacities. A different person, Eric K. Shinseki, now
occupies the office formerly held by Mr. Peake. The Court has
updated the case caption accordingly.

1

See ECF No. 276 (published as Veterans for Common Sense v.

2

Shinseki, 663 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2011)).

3

Ninth Circuit en banc panel affirmed this Court's decision in part,

4

reversed it in part, and remanded the case, this time with

5

instructions to dismiss it.

6

Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2012)).

7

2, 2012, the Ninth Circuit entered a formal mandate giving effect

8

to its May 7 judgment.

9

Court's docket on July 18, 2012.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

On May 7, 2012, the

ECF No. 279 (published as Veterans for

ECF No. 281.

On July

The mandate was filed in this

See id.

Pursuant to the mandate of the Ninth Circuit, this Court
hereby DISMISSES the instant case.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: July 20, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2