Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Apr. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 April 20, 2016 No. 13-3327 PAYSUN LONG, Appeal from the United States District Petitioner-Appellant, Court for the Central District of Illinois. v. No. 1:11-cv-1265-MMM KIM BUTLER, Michael M. Mihm, Respondent-Appellee. District Judge. O R D E R The petition for rehearing en banc is granted. The panel’s opinion and judgment are vacated. The court directs the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the effect of
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 April 20, 2016 No. 13-3327 PAYSUN LONG, Appeal from the United States District Petitioner-Appellant, Court for the Central District of Illinois. v. No. 1:11-cv-1265-MMM KIM BUTLER, Michael M. Mihm, Respondent-Appellee. District Judge. O R D E R The petition for rehearing en banc is granted. The panel’s opinion and judgment are vacated. The court directs the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the effect of 2..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
April 20, 2016
No. 13‐3327
PAYSUN LONG, Appeal from the United States District
Petitioner‐Appellant, Court for the Central District of Illinois.
v. No. 1:11‐cv‐1265‐MMM
KIM BUTLER, Michael M. Mihm,
Respondent‐Appellee. District Judge.
O R D E R
The petition for rehearing en banc is granted. The panel’s opinion and judgment
are vacated.
The court directs the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the effect of 28
U.S.C. §2254(d)(1), the subject of Part III of the petition for rehearing en banc. The court
solicits the parties’ views on the question whether at the time the conviction became final
it was “clearly established” that the principle of Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and
its successors, applied under the circumstances of this litigation. When addressing that
question, the parties should consider the appropriate level of generality at which to
understand what rules Napue and its successors stand for. See, e.g., Woods v. Donald, 135
S. Ct. 1372 (2015); Lopez v. Smith, 135 S. Ct. 1 (2014); Nevada v. Jackson, 133 S. Ct. 1990 (2013).
Appellantʹs opening brief is due on May 18, 2016, appellee’s response on June 8,
2016, and any reply brief on June 22, 2016. The principal briefs must not exceed 7,000
words, and the reply (if any) 3,500 words.
By separate order the court will set a date for oral argument.
