Brett C. Kimberlin, Appellee v. J. Michael Quinlan, et al., Appellants, 207 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000)Annotate this Case
Filed April 4, 2000
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia(No. 90cv01549)
On Appellants' Petition for Rehearing En Banc
BEFORE: Edwards, Chief Judge; Silberman, Williams, Ginsburg, Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel and Garland, Circuit Judges.
Circuit Judges SENTELLE and Garland did not participate in the matter
A statement of Circuit Judge KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc is attached.
O R D E R
Appellants' petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto have been circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the court in regular, active service did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the petition be denied.
Henderson, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I dissent from the denial of the appellants' petition for rehearing en banc for the reasons set forth in my panel dissent. See Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 199 F.3d 496, 504-06 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Because the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the appellee, does not establish a constitutional violation, the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity and we should therefore reverse the district court flat out. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991). Instead we remand for the appellee to resume his quest for evidence of an imagined wrong. So doing, we waste the time and resources of all involved.