Bryan Grady v. Michael W. Haley , 304 F.3d 1329 ( 2002 )

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ September 13, 2002
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 01-11698 CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 00-00838-CV-A-N
BRYAN GRADY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL W. HALEY, TOMMY HERRING,
ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
No. 01-11807
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 98-00274-CV-T-N
CALVIN NIX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RON JONES, MICHAEL HALEY, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
No. 01-12225
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 94-00676-CV-C-N
TONY FOUNTAIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DANIEL R. TALLEY, JESSE SMITH, Lt.,
(Farm Supervisor), ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
No. 01-12226
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 96-00854-CV-D-N
HADJI HICKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LEO ALLEN, Sergeant, OFFICER YEILDING,
COI, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
2
No. 01-12227
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 99-01207-CV-D-N
KENNETH BOGGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL W. HALEY, TOMMY HERRING,
ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama
_________________________
(September 13, 2002)
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND
SUGGESTION OF REHEARING EN BANC
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is
pending before this court.
On December 28, 2001, the court ordered that this Petition for Rehearing
and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc be suspended pending the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Larry Hope v. Mark Pelzer, 240 F.3d 975 (11th Cir.
3
2001), then on petition for certiorari.
In each of these cases, the panel’s judgment would have affirmed the
judgment of the district court upon the binding precedent of Hope v. Pelzer.
The Supreme Court has now decided Hope v. Pelzer with a full opinion,
reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
We find that the decision of the Supreme Court controls the issue in each of
these cases to the end that the judgment in each case by the district court,
dismissing defendants upon a finding that they are entitled to qualified immunity,
is erroneous.
Therefore, the panel grants the petition for rehearing and, upon the authority
of Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S.___ (2002), the judgment of the district court is
REVERSED. Each case is REMANDED.
4