Court Opinion

ID: 2765396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-12-30 18:00:56.706275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:45:20.531538
License: Public Domain

ORDER
 

  THOMAS, Chief Judge:
 

  On April 8, 2014, a three-judge panel of this Court, with one judge dissenting, filed an order denying Henry’s motion for reconsideration of the panel’s November 1, 2013 order denying his petition for panel rehearing and a stay of proceedings pending the issuance of a decision by the en banc panel in
  
   McKinney v. Ryan,
  
  No. 09-99018, a case involving related issues.
 

  A judge of this Court
  
   sua sponte
  
  requested a vote as to whether the panel’s April 8, 2014, order should be reheard en banc. A majority of the nonrecused active judges voted in favor of rehearing the order en banc. On September 4, 2014, an order was issued granting en banc review.
 

  Subsequently, upon the vote of a majority of the nonrecused active judges, this case was designated as a related case to
  
   McKinney
  
  and consolidated for rehearing en banc before the same en banc-panel.
  
   See
  
  Ninth Circuit Rule 35-3. On December 15, 2014, in Pasadena, California, the en banc panel heard oral argument in
  
   McKinney
  
  and held a subsequent conference on both the
  
   McKinney
  
  and
  
   Henry
  
  cases.
 

  Having heard the argument in
  
   McKinney,
  
  and having considered the record and the briefs filed by the parties in this case, the Court concludes that: (1) the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record, and that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument; and (2) a stay of proceedings and further en banc consideration in
  
   Henry
  
  is not necessary to secure or maintain the uniformity of the Court’s decisions.
 

  Therefore, this case is submitted for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Henry’s motion for a stay of proceedings pending the issuance of a decision in
  
   McKinney
  
  is DENIED. En banc proceedings in this case are concluded. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate.