Lile v. McKune

                                                                    F I L E D
                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                      Tenth Circuit
                                   PUBLISH
                                                                     AUG 20 2002
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                 PATRICK FISHER
                                                                          Clerk
                         FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT



 ROBERT G. LILE,
       Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-
       Appellant,
 v.                                            Nos. 98-3292 & 98-3294


 DAVID R. McKUNE and CHARLES
 SIMMONS,


       Defendants-Appellants/Cross-
       Appellees.


                    OPINION ON REMAND FROM THE
                    UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT



Timothy G. Madden, Kansas Department of Corrections, Topeka, Kansas, for
Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Matt Wiltanger (David J. Waxse and Paul W. Rebein with him on the briefs) of
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Overland Park, Kansas, for Plaintiff-
Appellee/Cross-Appellant.



Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________

McKAY, Circuit Judge.
                         _________________________
      On remand from the United States Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in

McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. __ , 122 S. Ct. 2017 (2002), we vacate our prior

opinion, order and mandate to the district court and remand with direction to

dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Petitioners-Appellants’ claims pursuant to

the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution do not rise to the level of

compulsion contemplated by Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion. Id. at 2032-

35 (O’Connor, J., concurring); see Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193

(1977) (when no single rationale explains the result of a fragmented Supreme

Court, the holding is the “position taken by those Members who concurred in the

judgments on the narrowest grounds ” (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169

n.15 (1976)).

      REMANDED.




                                         -2-