Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner appealed the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") determination that it did not have jurisdiction to accept an appeal filed one day late due to a post office error. At issue was whether the 30 day deadline for filing a notice of appeal with the BIA was jurisdictional. The court held that the 30 day deadline must be read as a claim-processing rule that was not jurisdictional. The court also held that, since the BIA erred as a matter of law in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction, the court must remand to the BIA to permit it to fully reconsider whether, under the circumstances presented, it would hear the appeal from the immigration judge's decision in this case. The court also concluded that all the BIA needed to do to avoid subjecting aliens to the risk of losing their appeals due to bad weather or delivery service error was to allow people to send notices of appeal over the internet.

Jensen Family Farms, Inc. ("Jensen") sued the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District ("District"), alleging that the District's Rules 220, 310, and 1010 were preempted by the federal Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; Rules 220 and 310 violated certain provisions of California law; and the Rules violated Jensen's due process rights. Jensen moved for summary judgment and while it's motion was pending, the district court granted the California Air Resources Board's ("CARB"), California's air pollution control agency, motion to intervene. CARB and the District (collectively, "defendants") subsequently filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Jensen appealed the district court's judgment. The principal question in this case, among other questions, was whether the District's rules were preempted by the CAA. The court held that Rules 220 and 310 were not standards or other requirements related to the control of emissions and therefore, not preempted by CAA 209(e). The court also held that Rule 1010 did not apply to any "nonroad engines," as that term was used in the CAA and therefore, was not preempted under section 209(e). The court further held that there was no basis for Jensen's claim under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17, 93116 or Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, 2450 et. seq.; that the Rules did not violate Jenson's due process rights where it admitted that the Rules served the legitimate government interest in minimizing air pollution from diesel engines; and the Rules did not violate California Constitution, Article 13A because Jensen waived this argument in its complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants.

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus where he was convicted of attempted second degree robbery and first degree murder of a Long Beach shop owner with the special circumstance that he was an active participant in a criminal street gang and the murder was carried out to further the activities of the criminal street gang under Cal. Penal Code 190.2(a)(22). The jury also found that a principal discharged a firearm resulting in the shop owner's death under Cal. Penal Code 12022.53(d), (e)(1) and imposed two gang enhancements pursuant to Cal. Penal Code 186.22(b)(1). At issue was whether petitioner's due process rights were violated because there was insufficient evidence to support the special circumstances finding pursuant to section 190.2(a)(22) and the gang enhancements imposed pursuant to sections 186.22(b)(1) and 12022.53(d) and (e)(1). The court held that petitioner's due process rights were not violated where there was ample evidence supporting the jury's conclusion that petitioner used extreme violence to avenge a minor slight against a casual acquaintance and a rational trier of fact could have found that when he and another gang member acted together to commit the robbery and murder, petitioner specifically intended to assist in criminal conduct. Therefore, the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus was affirmed.

Sierra Forest Legacy and other organizations (collectively, "Sierra Forest") appealed a largely unfavorable summary judgment against them and a favorable but limited remedial order in their National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and National Forest Management Act ("NFMA"), 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq., suit challenging the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment ("2004 Framework") and the Basin Project, a timber harvesting project approved under the 2004 Framework. The State of California ("California") also appealed a summary judgment against it and a limited remedial order in a related NEPA action. At issue was whether the process of establishing management guidelines governing 11.5 acres of federal land in the Sierra Nevada region complied with both the procedural requirements of NEPA and the substantive restrictions of NFMA. The court affirmed the district court's decision on the merits of Sierra Forest and California's NEPA claim and held that Sierra Forest and California had standing to assert a facial NEPA claim against the 2004 Framework but that the 2004 Framework supplemental environmental impact statement ("SEIS") adequately addressed short-term impacts to old forest wildlife and disclosed and rebutted public opposition. The court also held that the Forest Service did not violate NEPA when approving the Basin Project because the U.S. Forest Service and related federal defendants (collectively, "Federal Service") adequately addressed cumulative impacts of the proposed management act. The court further held that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to update the alternatives from the 2001 Framework SEIS to reflect new modeling techniques used in the 2004 Framework SEIS. However, the court vacated the district court's orders granting a limited remedy and remanded for reconsideration of the equities of a "substantive" injunction without giving undue deference to government experts. The court remanded also because it reversed the district court's decision on Sierra Forests' NFMA claims.

Petitioner, an African-American, was tried and convicted of aggravated mayhem, torture, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, corporal injury on a cohabitant, and criminal threats. During voir dire examination, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to remove nine potential jurors. At issue was whether the state court's decision to deny a Batson v. Kentucky claim when petitioner made no contemporaneous objection to the use of peremptory challenges in the trial court was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The court held that petitioner could not raise a Batson claim in his habeas petition where petitioner failed to timely object to the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges at trial. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying petitioner habeas relief.

Pinnacle Armor, Inc. ("Pinnacle") produced armor designed to protect buildings, vehicles, and the human body. Among Pinnacle's primary customers were local law enforcement agencies who depended in large part upon a federal subsidy to purchase the body arbor. The federal subsidy was conditioned on certification that the manufacturer's body armor was compliant with standards set by the National Institute of Justice ("NIJ"). Pinnacle alleged that the NIJ's decision to revoke certification of one of its products violated its procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and was arbitrary and capricious in violation of 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2). The court held that the due process claims were properly dismissed because the NIJ afforded Pinnacle adequate process. The court also held that the NIJ's certification decision was not committed to agency discretion by law and was therefore reviewable under the APA where Pinnacle's claims were sufficient to survive a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) claim.

Appellant, director of a child development center on the Elmendorf Air Force Base, sued appellees alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16, and a claim of unlawful removal from employment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7702. Appellant appealed from the district court's denial of summary judgment affirming a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB"), which in turn upheld a decision by the United States Air Force ("Agency"), to terminate her employment after she requested 120 days leave without pay pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 5 U.S.C. 6382(a)(1)(D), and failed to provide the minimum information required by section 6383(b) of the FMLA. The court held that the MSPB's finding was supported by substantial evidence where appellant's WH-380 form and the two doctors' notes she submitted did not provide the minimum information required by section 6383(b). The court further held that, because appellant refused to submit the minimal mandated medical certification, she could not show any harm arising from the Agency's request for more documentation that was required by the FMLA. The court further held that the administrative law judge properly rejected appellant's argument that the Agency failed to give her adequate time to provide medical certification. The court finally held that substantial evidence supported the MSPB's finding and therefore, the Agency acted within its discretion in removing her from her position.

Defendant appealed his sentence for seven counts of bank robbery. Defendant argued that his sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing because the government breached the plea agreement; the district court's decision to make an upward departure from criminal history category II to III, U.S.S.G. 4A1.3, was procedurally erroneous; and the district court's overall sentence was substantially unreasonable. The court held that the government did not breach the plea agreement where it made no argument that the district court should increase the offense level calculation set forth in the presentence report ("PSR") and plea agreement. The court also held that the court reviewed upward departures under section 4A1.3 for substantive reasonableness, not for procedural error, and concluded that the district court's sentence was substantively reasonable and procedural error was harmless where the district court deviated only 30 and 16 months from the high end of the PSR and its own Guidelines ranges and where the district court's characterization of defendant's seven armed robberies as serious offenses reflected a rational and meaningful consideration of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a).

Plaintiffs, a class of indigent children who suffered from severe emotional and mental disabilities, sued Idaho state officials more than three decades ago, alleging that the officials were providing them with inadequate care in violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. The parties reached agreements intended to remedy deficiencies in care and those agreements were embodied in three consent decrees entered and monitored by the district court. Plaintiffs appealed the 2007 order of the district court finding that defendants had substantially complied with the remaining Action Items, which were specified in an Implementation Plan that resulted from the third consent decree, asserting that it was error for the district court to apply the standard for civil contempt in determining whether to vacate the decrees. Plaintiffs further contended that the district court committed errors in fact and law in issuing protective orders barring them from taking supplemental depositions of appellee and two non-parties. The court held that the district court's application of the contempt standard with the imposition of the burden of proof on plaintiffs was error where the district court accepted the Action Items as the entire measure of compliance with the consent decree. Accordingly, the court reversed the order of the district court. The court also held that the district court committed no errors in upholding the assertion of the deliberative process privilege to one non-party and appellee, as well as the legislative privilege to the second non-party. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the protective orders.

Plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits alleging disability due to a combination of impairments. At issue was whether plaintiff's hearing before the administrative law judge ("ALJ") was invalid where plaintiff waived his right to representation at his hearing. The court held that there was no agency error where there was no disclosure required other than the disclosure in 42 U.S.C. 406(c) and that section 406(c)'s disclosure requirements were met.