Case Name: Thomas Martin MALINA and Mrs. Thomas Martin Malina, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Judge Douglas GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1993-08-26
Citations: 1 F.3d 304
Docket Number: No. 91-3757
Parties: Thomas Martin MALINA and Mrs. Thomas Martin Malina, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Judge Douglas GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and RAINEY, District Judge:
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 1
Pages: 304–307

Head Matter:
Thomas Martin MALINA and Mrs. Thomas Martin Malina, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Judge Douglas GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 91-3757.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 26, 1993.
Charles L. Patín, Jr., Roy A. Mongrue, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., LA Dept, of Justice, Charles S. McCowan, Jr., Baton Rouge, LA, for defendant-appellant.
Theodor Allen Schirmer, Malibu, CA, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and RAINEY, District Judge:
District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The petition for rehearing is DENIED.
In their petition for rehearing, the plaintiffs point out that the court has erred in saying that Malina was told to appear in court the next day. The plaintiffs correctly show that the Second Amended Complaint alleges that Malina was told to appear in the judge's office the next day. We hereby correct the opinion in this regard. This does not alter our analysis or the result, however. As our opinion states, one of the four factors from McAlester v. Brown, 469 F.2d 1280, 1282 (5th Cir.1972), is whether the acts occurred in the courtroom or appropriate adjunct spaces such as the judge's chambers.