Case Name: Daniel T. PAULY, as personal representative of the estate of Samuel Pauly, deceased; Daniel B. Pauly, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ray WHITE; Michael Mariscal; Kevin Truesdale, Defendants-Appellants, and State of New Mexico Department of Public Safety, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-11
Citations: 817 F.3d 715
Docket Number: No. 14-2035
Parties: Daniel T. PAULY, as personal representative of the estate of Samuel Pauly, deceased; Daniel B. Pauly, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ray WHITE; Michael Mariscal; Kevin Truesdale, Defendants-Appellants, and State of New Mexico Department of Public Safety, Defendant.
Judges: Before TYMKOVlCH, Chief Judge, KELLY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, HARTZ, GORSUCH, HOLMES, MATHESON, BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, McHUGH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 817
Pages: 715–719

Head Matter:
Daniel T. PAULY, as personal representative of the estate of Samuel Pauly, deceased; Daniel B. Pauly, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ray WHITE; Michael Mariscal; Kevin Truesdale, Defendants-Appellants, and State of New Mexico Department of Public Safety, Defendant.
No. 14-2035.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 11, 2016.
Leon R. Hunt, Lee Hunt Law, Santa Fe, NM, Pierre Levy, O’Friel and .Levy, P.C., Santa Fe, NM, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Matthew David Bullock, Mark Dawson Jarmie, Esq., Attorney, Jarmie & Associates, Albuquerque, NM, Mark D, Stand,ridge, Jarmie & Associates, Las Cruces, NM, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before TYMKOVlCH, Chief Judge, KELLY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, HARTZ, GORSUCH, HOLMES, MATHESON, BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, McHUGH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
This matter is before the court on the appellants' Petition for Rehearing and Re hearing En Banc. We also have a response from the appellees.
Upon consideration, the request for panel rehearing is denied by a majority of the original panel members-. Both the petition and response were also transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. Upon that submission, a poll was called. Via an equally divided vote, the poll did not carry. Consequently, the request for en banc consideration is also denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 35(a)(noting "[a] majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service" may order en banc rehearing).
Chief Judge Tymkovich, as well as Judges Kelly, Hartz, Gorsuch, Holmes and Moritz would grant the en banc petition. Judge Phillips has filed a separate concurrence in support of the denial of en banc rehearing, which Judge Briscoe joins. Judge Hartz and Judge Moritz have written separately in dissent. Judge Gorsuch joins Judge Hartz' dissent, and Judges Kelly, Hartz, Gorsuch and Holmes join Judge Moritz' dissent.