The following excerpt is from Hernandez-Gutierrez v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Ariz. (In re Zermeno-Gomez), No. 17-71867 (9th Cir. 2017):
In Carver v. Lehman, 558 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 2009), this court issued an amended opinion that affirmed a district court order denying relief in a civil rights lawsuit. While the original opinion had the effect of reversing the district court order by a two-to-one vote, one of the judges in the majority died before the mandate issued. His replacement on the panel joined the previously dissenting judge to form a new majority. The new majority noted, "[u]ntil the mandate has issued, opinions can be, and regularly are, amended or withdrawn, by the merits panel at the request of the parties pursuant to a petition for panel rehearing, in response to an internal memorandum from another member of the court . . . or sua sponte by the panel itself." Id. at 878-79. Accordingly, "the prior majority's holding in this case may or may not have survived until the mandate issued, but it was certainly not yet enshrined as a binding construction of the Constitution" at the time the original panel member died. Id. at 879.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.