Dock McNeely v. Lou Blanas

Good Law

2003 Daily Journal DAR 7929·336 F.3d 822·2003 WL 21665156·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6297·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 14352

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 17, 200302-15860California3,981 words

Opinion

Tashima, J.

ORDER

The opinion filed on April 18, 2003, and reported at 326 F.3d 1066 , is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges Tashima and Wardlaw vote to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Noonan so recommends. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, but no judge of the court has called a vote on en banc rehearing. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. See Fed. RApp. P. 35(f). No further petition for rehearing may be filed.

Respondent-appellee’s application to consider matters outside of the record and his motion for judicial notice, both filed concurrently with respondent-appellee’s petition for rehearing, are denied.

OPINION

Dock McNeely (“McNeely” or “Petitioner”), a California pretrial detainee, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. McNeely contends that his constitutional speedy trial rights are being denied because he has been in custody since April 1998 without a preliminary hearing or trial. We have jurisdiction…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.