Case Name: Bruce M. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rogelio VALDEZ, in His Individual and Official Capacities, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2019-02-19
Citations: 916 F.3d 404
Docket Number: No. 17-41243
Parties: Bruce M. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
Rogelio VALDEZ, in His Individual and Official Capacities, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 916
Pages: 404–405

Head Matter:
Bruce M. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
Rogelio VALDEZ, in His Individual and Official Capacities, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-41243
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 19, 2019
Lawrence Morales, II, Esq., Allison Sarah Hartry, Morales Law Firm, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Heather Gebelin Hacker, Assistant Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, Eric Alan Hudson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Financial Litigation & Charitable Trusts Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anderson notes that after we issued our decision, Gregory Perkes was nominated by the Governor to once again serve as a justice on the Thirteenth Court of Appeals. This relates "to changed circumstances since the case was decided by the district court" and by our panel, which do not provide grounds for panel rehearing. Our decision and denial of rehearing are "[w]ithout prejudice to [the] pursuit of any appropriate remedies which may be available in the district court." We express no opinion on the availability of further relief in the context of the close professional relationship between judge and staff attorney.
The petition for panel rehearing is denied.
Anastasiadis v. S.S. Little John , 347 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1965) (mem.); see also Armster v. U.S. Dist. Court , 806 F.2d 1347, 1356 (9th Cir. 1986) ("A panel is simply not capable of having overlooked or misapprehended 'points of . fact' occurring subsequent to its initial decision."); 16AA Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3986.1 (4th ed.) ("New factual material, including material concerning events occurring after the initial decision, is not likely to be considered [in a petition for panel rehearing].").
Anastasiadis , 347 F.2d at 823.