Case Name: Sonny B. SOUTHERLAND, Sr., individually and as parent and natural guardian of Venus Southerland, Sonny B. Southerland, Jr., Nathaniel Southerland, Emmanuel Felix, Kiam Felix, and Elizabeth Felix, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Timothy Woo, John Does 1-9, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-22
Citations: 681 F.3d 122
Docket Number: No. 07-4449-cv (L)
Parties: Sonny B. SOUTHERLAND, Sr., individually and as parent and natural guardian of Venus Southerland, Sonny B. Southerland, Jr., Nathaniel Southerland, Emmanuel Felix, Kiam Felix, and Elizabeth Felix, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Timothy Woo, John Does 1-9, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Judge RAGGI dissents in an opinion joined by Chief Judge JACOBS and Judges CABRANES, WESLEY, and LIVINGSTON.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 681
Pages: 122–139

Head Matter:
Sonny B. SOUTHERLAND, Sr., individually and as parent and natural guardian of Venus Southerland, Sonny B. Southerland, Jr., Nathaniel Southerland, Emmanuel Felix, Kiam Felix, and Elizabeth Felix, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Timothy Woo, John Does 1-9, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-4449-cv (L).
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 22, 2012.
Michael G. O’Neill, New York, N.Y., for Plaintiffs-Appellants, Venus S., Sonny B.S. Jr., Nathaniel S., Emmanuel F., Kiam F., and Elizabeth F.
Sonny B. Southerland, Brooklyn, N.Y., Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.
Julian L. Kalkstein, City of New York (Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel; Larry A. Sonnenshein, of counsel), New York, N.Y., for Defendants-Appellees.
Judge RAGGI dissents in an opinion joined by Chief Judge JACOBS and Judges CABRANES, WESLEY, and LIVINGSTON.

Opinion:
Chief Judge JACOBS dissents in an opinion joined by Judges CABRANES, RAGGI, WESLEY, and LIVINGSTON.
ORDER
Following disposition of this appeal on February 2, 2012, and prior to the amended disposition on May 14, 2012, an active judge of the Court requested a poll on whether to rehear the case in banc. A poll having been conducted and there being no majority favoring in banc review, rehearing in banc is hereby DENIED.