Kidd, Patricia v. DC, et al, No. 98-7075 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 24, 2000.

United States Court of Appeals



No. 98-7075

Filed On: June 2, 2000

Patricia Kidd, Appellant


District of Columbia, et al., Appellees

Consolidated with 98-7100


BEFORE: Edwards, Chief Judge; Silberman, Williams, Ginsburg, Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel and Garland, Circuit Judges.


The petition for rehearing en banc of amicus curiae 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.

Per Curiam


Mark J. Langer, Clerk


Robert A. Bonner

Deputy Clerk

Chief Judge Edwards and Circuit Judges Sentelle, Tatel and Garland would grant the petition.

A statement of Circuit Judge Tatel, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, joined by Chief Judge Edwards and Circuit Judges Sentelle and Garland, is attached.

Circuit Judge Rogers did not participate in this matter.

Tatel, Circuit Judge, with whom Edwards, Chief Judge, and Sentelle and Garland, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: In my view, this case raises a "question of exceptional importance" because the panel decision will produce precisely the kind of uncertainty and potential loss of appeal rights that Rule 58 was intended to prevent. I trust, however, that our district court col- leagues will recognize that there is no disagreement on the panel that the simplest solution is for them to instruct the Clerk of Court to issue judgments adhering to Model Forms 31 and 32. By doing so, they will provide the certainty Rule 58 demands, prevent accidental loss of appeal rights, and ensure that this court will never again have to address this issue. See Kidd v. District of Columbia, 206 F.3d 35, 41 (D.C. Cir. 2000); id. at 44 (Tatel, J., dissenting).