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

This case involved an experimental forest thinning, fuels reduction, and research project (the Project) in the Deschutes National Forest in central Oregon. The Project allowed logging and controlled burning on 2,500 acres of the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. The League of Wilderness Defenders-Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project (the League) filed suit against the U.S. Forest Service and Service officials, alleging that the agency's environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Project failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The district court granted summary judgment to the Service, relying in part on the fact that the Project involved research in an experimental forest. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the EIS was adequately supported by scientific data and took a hard look at the significant impacts of the Project, and therefore, the EIS complied with NEPA. View "League of Wilderness Defenders v. USFS" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services denied Medicare coverage of the BIO-1000, a piece of durable medical equipment used to treat osteoarthritis of the knee. In four decisions, the Medicare appeals counsel, the highest level of agency adjudication, ruled that the BIO-1000 had not been shown to be reasonable and necessary for the treatment at issue. The supplier of the device challenged those decisions. The district court granted summary judgment for the BIO-1000 supplier. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment and joined the Fourth Circuit in holding that the appeals council's coverage denials for the BIO-1000 were not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence, as (1) the appeals council adequately explained its reasons for denying coverage; and (2) the coverage denials were supported by substantial evidence. Remanded. View "Int'l Rehab. Scis. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former employee of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) who suffered from multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus, filed an administrative complaint based on alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The complaint was adjudicated by an ALJ, who denied relief in part. Plaintiff then filed an optional administrative appeal with the EEOC. Plaintiff withdrew her appeal without waiting 180 days as specified in 29 C.F.R. 1614.407(d) and filed suit in district court based on the same claims she asserted in her administrative complaint. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, holding that under Rivera v. USPS, it lacked jurisdiction because Plaintiff had not waited 180 days after filing her administrative appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that based on Bankston v. White and on post-Rivera regulation, Bullock had exhausted her administrative remedies. Remanded. View "Bullock v. Berrien" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder. This case was the second time Defendant sought habeas review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2008, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's first habeas petition. The State of Arizona subsequently issued a death warrant and set August 8, 2012 as Cook's execution date. Here Defendant asserted that his pretrial was ineffective and that his postconviction relief (PCR) counsel was ineffective. Defendant argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Martinez v. Ryan required the district court to excuse his procedural default because of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) in his state PCR proceedings. Defendant also asked the Court to stay his execution so he could further pursue his underlying pretrial IAC claim. The Ninth Circuit (1) affirmed the district court's decision to deny Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief for judgment under Martinez, holding that Martinez does not apply to this case; and (2) denied Defendant's motion for a stay of execution, as Defendant's pretrial IAC claim lacked merit. View "Cook v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were United States citizens or legal permanent residents who had good reason to believe they were on the Terrorist Screening Center's (TSC) no-fly list (List). They initially submitted grievances through the redress program run by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), but the government refused to confirm or deny their inclusion on the List. Rather than continuing to pursue their administrative grievances with the TSA, Plaintiffs filed this action against the directors of the TSC and FBI and the attorney general, challenging the TSA's grievance procedures. The district court dismissed the case, holding that TSA was a necessary party to the litigation but that TSA could not feasibly be joined in the district court due to 49 U.S.C. 46110, which grants federal courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review TSA's final orders. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) section 46110 does not strip the district court of federal question jurisdiction over substantive challenges to the inclusion of one's name on the List; and (2) the district court's determination that TSA was a necessary party was not an abuse of discretion, but the court erred in holding that joinder of TSA was infeasible in light of section 46110. View "Latif v. Holder" on Justia Law

Two environmental groups (Petitioners) petitioned for review of a final rulemaking by the EPA that approved a revision to a California state plan to implement national ambient air quality standards for air pollutants. The revision required the South Coast Air Quality Management District to transfer credits to a soon-to-be-completed power plant named Sentinel. Petitioners alleged that the EPA committed procedural errors during the rulemaking process and that the substance of the revised state plan violated the Clean Air Act. Petitioners and the EPA agreed this case should be remanded because the EPA's final rule was invalid, so the only dispute was whether vacatur was appropriate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded without vacatur so the construction of the power plant could proceed without delay, as the power supply would otherwise be interrupted and the plant's operation was not authorized to commence without a new and valid EPA rule in place. View "Ca. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. EPA" on Justia Law

Defendant Rufino Valdes-Vega appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress cocaine found in his truck. Defendant contended that the stop of his truck by border patrol agents seventy miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border violated the Fourth Amendment, and consequently, the cocaine found in his truck must be suppressed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the totality of the circumstances in this case did not provide border patrol agents with reasonable suspicion to believe that Defendant was smuggling drugs or aliens. View "United States v. Valdes-Vega" on Justia Law

The district court presided over four class action cases. Two insurance companies (collectively, Defendants) were the defendants in the two underlying cases. Allianz Life Insurance Company (Allianz) was a defendant in the other cases. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs opposed and attached a declaration by Dr. Craig McCann to support their theories. When Defendants moved to exclude the opinion, the court appointed an expert witness, Dr. Zvi Bodie, to evaluate Dr. McCann's opinion. The district court ordered Dr. Bodie's report sealed until it determined whether the report was admissible. In its case, Allianz filed a motion for summary judgment and a Daubert motion to exclude Dr. McCann. Defendants settled with the plaintiffs before the district court ruled on the Daubert or summary judgment motions. Allianz subsequently intervened in the underlying cases and requested the unsealing of Dr. Bodie's report. The district court denied its motion, ruling that the presumption in favor of public access to judicial records did not apply to the records at issue because they were attached to a non-dispositive Daubert motion. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions to grant the motion, because the records at issue were filed in connection with pending summary judgment motions. View "Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N.A." on Justia Law

Deborah Benge, a former employee of Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrication, filed a disability claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act seeking compensation for her work-related injury. The ALJ found that Benge's disability at the time was permanent. The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) made partial permanent disability payments to Benge until Benge underwent surgery. An ALJ subsequently determined that Benge's nine-month total disability immediately following the surgery was temporary in nature. This determination absolved the OWCP from making disability payments during this time period. Instead, Pacific was liable for the payments. The Department of Labor's Benefits Review Board affirmed the ALJ, concluding that even if a disability is declared permanent, it may be later re-characterized as temporary when the underlying condition worsens and re-stabilizes following a surgical procedure. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) under the Longshore Act, a prior finding of partial permanent disability does not preclude a later finding of temporary disability for the same underlying injury during a period of recovery following surgery; and (2) because Benge's partial disability could be re-characterized as a temporary total disability in accord with changed circumstances, Pacific was responsible for the temporary total disability payments. View "Pac. Ship Repair & Fabrication, Inc. v. Office of Worker Comp. Programs" on Justia Law

Marc and Claire Headley were two former ministers of the Church of Scientology International. Marc sued the Church and Claire sued the Church and the Religious Technology Center under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Act), making claims of forced labor and that the Church and Center psychologically coerced them to provide labor. Specifically, they contended that the Church and Center violated the Act by causing them to believe that they could not leave the ministry or that they would face serious harm in doing so. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding (1) Marc's allegations of instances of physical force against him did not raise a triable issue of material fact on his forced-labor claim; and (2) Marc's and Claire's claims of psychologically coerced labor were barred by the ministerial exception. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Headleys did not establish a genuine issue of fact regarding whether they were victims of forced-labor violations; and (2) the record did not allow the conclusion that the Church or Center violated the Act. View "Headley v. Church of Scientology Int'l" on Justia Law