532 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2008), 06-1646, Easley v. Reuss
|Citation:||532 F.3d 592|
|Party Name:||Cynthia EASLEY, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Christopher B. Easley, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael B. REUSS, Sergeant, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||July 03, 2008|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Charles A. Boyle (submitted), Boyle & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Amy J. Doyle , Crivello, Carlson & Mentkowski, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before COFFEY , RIPPLE and KANNE , Circuit Judges.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
We grant the petition for rehearing to cure an administrative error: The order of September 14, 2007, was inadvertently issued without the final approval of all members of the panel. All of the panel members hereby adopt and approve the order issued on September 14, 2007.
In her petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc, Ms. Easley requests that this court revisit its prior decision. We decline to do so, but we take this opportunity to explain our denial of further review in order to provide litigants with some guidance concerning the proper contents of petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc.
Our discussion begins with the appellate rules governing petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 40 and 35 , respectively. Although similar in some respects, the two types of petitions for rehearing are governed by different standards reflective of the purpose of that particular procedural tool.
Appellate Rule 40 governs petitions for panel rehearing. It provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he petition must state with particularity each point of law or fact that the petitioner believes the court has overlooked or misapprehended and must argue in support of the petition." Fed. R.App. P. 40(a)(2) (emphasis added). As suggested by the rule, petitions for panel rehearing should alert the panel to specific factual or legal matters that the party raised, but that the panel may have failed to address or may have misunderstood. It goes without saying that the panel cannot have “overlooked or misapprehended" an issue that was not presented to it. Panel rehearing is not a vehicle
for presenting new arguments, and, absent extraordinary circumstances, we shall not entertain arguments raised for the first time in a...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP