The opinion
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Filed April 4, 2000
No. 98-5530
Brett C. Kimberlin,
Appellee
v.
J. Michael Quinlan, et al.,
Appellants
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.
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.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
Circuit Judges Sentelle and Garland did not participate
in the matter.
A statement of Circuit Judge Henderson dissenting from
the denial of rehearing en banc is attached.
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 constitu-
tional violation, the appellants are entitled to qualified immu-
nity 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 re-
sources of all involved.