holding that neither these sections, nor the Fourteenth Amendment itself “create in the government a right to maintain this action” for a civil injunction remedy
How later courts described this case
- holding that neither these sections, nor the Fourteenth Amendment itself “create in the government a right to maintain this action” for a civil injunction remedy
- affirming dismissal of complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief, rejecting argument of United States that criminal prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 are inadequate remedies
- holding that § 242 is “designed to prevent violations of all fourteenth amendment rights”
- holding that there is no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 , 242
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993)
644 F.2d 187, 191-93 (3d Cir. 1980), overruled on other grounds, Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intel. & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and VAN DUSEN, ALDISERT, GIBBONS, HUNTER, WEIS, GARTH, HIGGINBOTHAM and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges. *
ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.
The petition for rehearing filed by Appellant in the above entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the *207 court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.
SEITZ, Chief Judge and GIBBONS, A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM, J., and SLOVI-TER, Circuit Judges, would grant the petition for rehearing.
Judge Adams did not participate in the consideration of this matter.