Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

08-99017 - Gregory Dickens v. Charles L. Ryan


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
08-99017 - Gregory Dickens v. Charles L. Ryan
August 3, 2012
PDF | More
FILED OPINION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON and N. RANDY SMITH) AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REMANDED. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. Judge: SR Dissenting, Judge: NRS Authoring. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [8274086]
January 4, 2013
PDF | More
Filed Order for PUBLICATION (KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35???3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. [8462500]
January 23, 2014
PDF | More
FILED OPINION (ALEX KOZINSKI, HARRY PREGERSON, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, MARSHA S. BERZON, JAY S. BYBEE, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, SANDRA S. IKUTA, N. RANDY SMITH, MARY H. MURGUIA, MORGAN B. CHRISTEN and PAUL J. WATFORD) AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED. The parties shall bear their own costs. Opinion by Judge N.R. Smith; Partial Concurrence by Chief Judge Kozinski; Concurrence by Judge Watford; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Callahan; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Christen. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [8948829]
March 11, 2014
PDF | More
Filed Order for PUBLICATION (ALEX KOZINSKI, HARRY PREGERSON, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, MARSHA S. BERZON, JAY S. BYBEE, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, SANDRA S. IKUTA, N. RANDY SMITH, MARY H. MURGUIA, MORGAN B. CHRISTEN and PAUL J. WATFORD)(CMC Dissents) Gregory Scott Dickens appealed the district court???s denial of his 28 U.S.C. ?? 2254 habeas corpus petition. In a divided en banc opinion, we affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the district court???s judgment. See Dickens v. Ryan, 740 F.3d 1302, 1322 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). The court was later advised that Dickens died on January 27, 2014???four days after the publication of our opinion. On January 29, 2014, the state of Arizona moved to stay the mandate, vacate the filed opinion, and dismiss the petition as moot. Because the state has failed to ???demonstrate . . . equitable entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of vacatur,??? U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P???ship, 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994), we deny the state???s motion. No party disputes that we had jurisdiction at the time we decided this case. The untimely death of Dickens after our decision had been rendered does not ???deprive [this] court of jurisdiction retroactively.??? Armster v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 806 F.2d 1347, 1353 (9th Cir. 1986).1 ???In these circumstances, while we are not precluded from exercising article III power, we are likewise not prohibited from dismissing the case post hoc.??? Id. at 1355. The decision whether to vacate a filed opinion based on post hoc mootness ???is within our discretion based on equity.??? United States v. Payton, 593 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2010). In exercising our discretion, the lack of prejudice weighs heavily in favor of denying the motion. Both parties??? claims have been subjected to en banc review. Neither party is entitled to additional appellate review, because the decision to grant a petition for certiorari is discretionary. Dickens will not receive the hearing to which he would otherwise have been entitled, see Dickens 740 F.3d 1321???22, but only the defense???who opposes vacatur???will be prejudiced by that result.2 Furthermore, judicial precedents ???are not merely the property of private litigants,??? but are ???valuable to the legal community as a whole.??? U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co., 513 U.S. at 26. The precedent set by the en banc panel in this case will undoubtedly affect cases now pending before this court. We see no reason to undo this precedent and force future panels to duplicate our efforts by re-deciding issues we have already resolved within the contours of article III. The state???s motion is DENIED. [9010109]