United States v. 2007-10-09 | 04-36021 | PHILLIPS VHUST | precedential | opinion |

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 FRANK MARVIN PHILLIPS, No. 04-36021
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
v. CV-01-01252-ALH
District of Oregon,LYNN HUST, Library Staff, PortlandDefendant-Appellant.  ORDER DENYING
PETITION FOR
REHEARING AND
PETITION FOR
REHEARING
EN BANC

Filed September 14, 2007
Before: James R. Browning, Dorothy W. Nelson, and
Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Circuit Judges.
Order;
Dissent by Judge Kozinski
ORDER
Judge Browning and Judge Nelson have voted to deny the
petition for rehearing and have recommended denying the
petition for rehearing en banc. Judge O’Scannlain has voted
to grant the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en
banc.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en
banc, and a judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the
matter en banc. The case failed to receive a majority of the
13569

-- 1 of 4 --

votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc con-
sideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35.
The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en
banc are DENIED.
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the order denying
the petition for rehearing en banc, joined by O’SCANNLAIN,
KLEINFELD, GOULD, TALLMAN, BYBEE, CALLAHAN,
BEA, M. SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges:
All I can add to Judge O’Scannlain’s bulls-eye dissent is
my utter astonishment that we’re leaving an opinion on the
books that not only denies the prison librarian qualified
immunity but actually holds her liable. Her transgression?
Failing to help a prisoner bind a brief in a way that’s not even
permitted, and certainly not required, by the Supreme Court’s
rules. It’s perfectly clear that a timely cert. petition, bound or
unbound, would have been accepted under Supreme Court
Rule 39.3. If the prisoner didn’t file it, he has only himself to
blame. How the prison librarian violated any of his rights, let
alone his clearly established rights, is a mystery that repeated
readings of the majority opinion do not dispel. I suspect that
the Justices, who know their precedents and filing procedures
all too well, would not agree with our opinion.
13570 PHILLIPS v. HUST

-- 2 of 4 --

-- 3 of 4 --

PRINTED FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS
BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted
© 2007 Thomson/West.

-- 4 of 4 --