Opinion

Kimberlin, Brett C. v. Quinlan, Michael J.

207 F.3d 667
340 U.S. App. D.C. 508
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6424
2000 WL 303166

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Filed: Apr 4, 2000
Status: Published
Author: Henderson
On the bench: Edwards, Silberman, Williams, Ginsburg, Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, Garland
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 24.4%

The opinion

KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge,

dissenting:

I dissent from the denial of the appellants’ petition for rehearing en bane 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 constitutional violation, the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity and we should therefore reverse the district court flat out. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). Instead we remand for the appellee to resume his quest for evidence of an imagined wrong. So doing, we waste the time and resources of all involved.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.