“In our court, two judges on a panel make law for 20% of Americans as a ‘supervisory’ matter, even where the case does not require the matter to be decided. . . . The traditional view, which we seem to have rejected in Barapind, is that since we are empowered only to decide cases, not to legislate, only those principles necessary to the decision are binding law of the circuit.”
How later courts described this case
- “In our court, two judges on a panel make law for 20% of Americans as a ‘supervisory’ matter, even where the case does not require the matter to be decided. . . . The traditional view, which we seem to have rejected in Barapind, is that since we are empowered only to decide cases, not to legislate, only those principles necessary to the decision are binding law of the circuit.”
- “California Penal Code section 3041 vests ... all ... California prisoners whose sentences provide for the possibility of parole with a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the receipt of a parole release date, a liberty interest that is protected by the procedural safeguards of the Due Process Clause”
- discussing substantial differences between prison disciplinary proceedings and parole determinations
- Klein- feld, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Order; Dissent by Judge KLEINFELD.
ORDER
The panel has voted to deny the petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc.
The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonre-cused active judges in favor of en banc reconsideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35.
The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are denied.