STEVEN PECK V. MARGARET HINCHEY, No. 14-15526 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 16, 2016.
Download PDF
FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN PECK; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARGARET HINCHEY, individually and in her official capacity as a peace officer with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office; et al., No. JUL 12 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-15526 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01371-JAT District of Arizona, Phoenix ORDER Defendants-Appellees. STEVEN PECK; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. No. 14-15717 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01371-JAT District of Arizona, Phoenix MARGARET HINCHEY, individually and in her official capacity as a peace officer with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Defendant-Appellant. Before: BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,* District Judge. * The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. The Memorandum Disposition filed June 16, 2016 is amended as follows: On page 3, in the first full paragraph, after the last sentence that begins, “We affirm the district court’s decision . . . ” insert the following sentence: “As the district court based its dismissal of these claims on immunity grounds, we decline to address in the first instance Hinchey’s alternative bases for dismissal of Counts I, II, and III, and leave these to the district court to consider on remand.” With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Appellant’s petition for rehearing, filed June 30, 2016, is DENIED. The panel will not entertain future petitions for rehearing. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
