Henry Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, Mn
437 F.3d 1289, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 4905 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal appellate court may grant a petition for rehearing en banc, vacate a prior panel opinion, and limit the scope of the rehearing to specific issues raised by the petitioner, while reinstating the remainder of the original panel's decision.
Facts:
- A legal dispute arose between an individual named Szabla and the City of Brooklyn Park.
- The basis for Szabla's claim against the city was an alleged violation under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
- The provided text does not contain any further substantive facts detailing the specific events or circumstances underlying Szabla's Section 1983 claim.
Procedural Posture:
- Szabla filed a lawsuit against the City of Brooklyn Park in federal district court (the court of first instance), which included a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
- The district court granted the City of Brooklyn Park's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Szabla's Section 1983 claim.
- Szabla, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals issued an opinion on December 1, 2005, which reversed the district court's summary judgment ruling on the Section 1983 claim.
- The City of Brooklyn Park, as appellee, filed a petition for rehearing en banc on December 15, 2005, asking the full Court of Appeals to review the panel's decision regarding the Section 1983 claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a court of appeals, upon granting a petition for rehearing en banc, vacate a prior panel decision and limit the scope of the new hearing to only the issues raised in the petition?
Opinions:
Per Curiam Order - The Court
Yes. A court of appeals may limit the scope of a rehearing en banc to specific issues. The court granted the City of Brooklyn Park's petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the prior panel opinion. However, the court explicitly limited the scope of this new hearing to the issues raised in the city's petition—namely, the panel's reversal of summary judgment on Szabla's Section 1983 claim. The court then reinstated all other parts of the original panel opinion and judgment.
Analysis:
This order demonstrates a court's procedural power to manage its docket efficiently. By granting a limited rehearing en banc, the court signals that the specific issue—here, municipal liability under Section 1983—is of exceptional importance or that the panel's decision may conflict with existing precedent. This procedural move allows the full court to address a critical point of law without reopening the entire case, thereby conserving judicial resources while ensuring uniformity and correctness in the court's jurisprudence on a key issue.
