John Loudermilk v. Michael Danner

10-15980Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit21.10.2011

Gesamter Gesetzestext

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN LOUDERMILK and TIFFANY
LOUDERMILK, individually and as
parents and next friends of Brittany Renee
Nash, Dakota James Loudermilk, Kristin
Grace Loudermilk, Faith Rose
Loudermilk, and Montana Vaughn
Loudermilk, minor children,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
MICHAEL DANNER,
Defendant - Appellant,
RICHARD GAGNON,
Defendant - Appellant,
JOSHUA RAY,
Defendant - Appellant,
JOSEPH SOUSA, Maricopa County
Deputy Sheriffs, individually and in their
official capacity,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO,
No. 10-15980
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00636-EHC
District of Arizona,
Phoenix
ORDER
FILED
OCT 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Defendant,
JULIE RHODES,
Defendant,
RHONDA CASH,
Defendant,
JENNA CRAMER,
Defendant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and to deny the
petition for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no
judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App.
P. 35.
The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are
denied.
The memorandum disposition filed on September 12, 2011 is hereby
amended by substituting “Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999)” for
“Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2009)” on page 4. No further petitions
shall be entertained.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.