Court Opinion

ID: 6937037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 00:39:55.300583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:07:31.706560
License: Public Domain

NOONAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the opinion and judgment of the court except that I do not believe it appropriate in Part II B1 for the court to speculate as to the existence of a genuine issue as to the appearance of bias and as to the facts Stivers might conceivably prove; I do not believe that Stivers has shown that Rodefer’s report was the result of any decision by the Board to harass him; in Part IV A2 n. 9, the court has mistakenly expanded Sablan, 856 F.2d at 1827 by prefacing the quote from Sabían with the words “if prior to the assertion of the plaintiffs claim;” and under Fairar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, -, 113 S.Ct. 566, 575, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992) the plaintiffs in the plural are not entitled to any counsel fees because only Stivers achieved success.