Douglas
California Ass'n of Rural Health Clinics v. Douglas
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Nelson, J.
ORDER
The opinion filed on July 5, 2013 is amended as follows:
On page 8 of the slip opinion, the second sentence of the third paragraph, which reads; “We reverse the district court’s holding that the Climes have a private right of action to challenge the Department’s implementation of the SPA prior to obtaining approval,” is stricken.
■ An amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order.
With this amendment, the panel unanimously votes to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Murguia votes to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Nelson and Tashima so recommend. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.
The petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for en banc or panel rehearing shall be entertained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
OPINION
This case concerns a clash of competing interests: the mission of publicly-funded health clinics to provide a panoply of medical services to under-served, communities on the one hand, and California’s persistent budget woes on the other. We must…