ANDERSON v. VALDEZ (2019)

Anderson notes that after we issued our decision, Gregory Perkes was nominated by the Governor to once again serve as a justice on the Thirteenth Court of Appeals. This relates “to changed circumstances since the case was decided by the district court” and by our panel, which do not provide grounds for panel rehearing.¹ Our decision and denial of rehearing are “[w]ithout prejudice to [the] pursuit of any appropriate remedies which may be available in the district court.”² We express no opinion on the availability of further relief in the context of the close professional relationship between judge and staff attorney.

The petition for panel rehearing is denied.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Anastasiadis v. S.S. Little John, 347 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1965) (mem.); see also Armster v. U.S. Dist. Court, 806 F.2d 1347, 1356 (9th Cir. 1986) (“A panel is simply not capable of having overlooked or misapprehended ‘points of ․ fact’ occurring subsequent to its initial decision.”); 16AA Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3986.1 (4th ed.) (“New factual material, including material concerning events occurring after the initial decision, is not likely to be considered [in a petition for panel rehearing].”).

2.   Anastasiadis, 347 F.2d at 823.

PER CURIAM: