Case Name: HARRIS, Martin a/k/a Carmichael, Arthur Prison Number 8016203, et al., Appellants, v. Irene PERNSLEY, individually and in her official capacity as Welfare Commissioner of the City of Philadelphia, et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1985-03-21
Citations: 758 F.2d 83
Docket Number: No. 84-1039
Parties: HARRIS, Martin a/k/a Carmichael, Arthur Prison Number 8016203, et al., Appellants, v. Irene PERNSLEY, individually and in her official capacity as Welfare Commissioner of the City of Philadelphia, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before ALDISERT, Chief Judge, SEITZ, ADAMS, GIBBONS, HUNTER, WEIS, GARTH, HIGGINBOTHAM, SLOVITER, BECKER, Circuit Judges, and TEITELBAUM, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 758
Pages: 83–86

Head Matter:
HARRIS, Martin a/k/a Carmichael, Arthur Prison Number 8016203, et al., Appellants, v. Irene PERNSLEY, individually and in her official capacity as Welfare Commissioner of the City of Philadelphia, et al., Appellees.
No. 84-1039.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
March 21, 1985.
SUR PETITION BY MARKS AND WALDMAN FOR REHEARING
Before ALDISERT, Chief Judge, SEITZ, ADAMS, GIBBONS, HUNTER, WEIS, GARTH, HIGGINBOTHAM, SLOVITER, BECKER, Circuit Judges, and TEITELBAUM, District Judge.
Circuit Judges ADAMS, HUNTER, WEIS, GARTH and BECKER would grant the petition for rehearing.
Hon. Hubert I. Teitelbaum, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, on panel rehearing only.

Opinion:
SUR PETITION BY CITY APPELLEES FOR REHEARING
The petition for rehearing filed by City Appellees in the above entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.
Circuit Judges ADAMS, HUNTER, WEIS, GARTH and BECKER would grant the petition for rehearing.
Judge Adams dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing in banc because he believes that this case raises important questions regarding the scope of the Younger abstention doctrine, and because it appears that the state court proceedings involving the Philadelphia County prison system are being conducted in good faith and with due haste.