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

The FBI appealed the district court's order granting Shura Council's motion for sanctions under Rule 11(c). The FBI had already "corrected" the challenged pleadings and provided all the information it was obligated to provide to the district court before Shura Council filed its motion for sanctions. Shura Council moved for sanctions long after the district court had ruled on the adequacy of the government's eventual compliance, and a fortiori after it had ruled the FBI's original response had been inadequate and misleading. The motion for sanctions was made after "judicial rejection of the offending contention." Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated the award of fees. View "Islamic Shura Council of So. Cal. v. FBI" on Justia Law

These interlocutory appeals stemmed from an encounter between a group of young men and several BART officers that ended with the shooting and death of one of the men. The court concluded that Defendant Mehserle was not entitled to immunity from Oscar Grant, Jr.'s Fourteenth Amendment claim where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mehserle's action's were required by a legitimate law enforcement purpose; the court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal asserting a right to federal law qualified immunity from a California state law (Civil Code 52.1) violation; Mehserle was entitled to qualified immunity from a claim that he unlawfully arrested Plaintiff Anicete; the district court failed to consider whether there was any evidence that Mehserle participated in the extended detentions of Plaintiffs Anicete, Reyes, or Nigel Bryson; the district court properly denied Mehserle qualified immunity from Plaintiff Jack Bryson's unlawful arrest claim; Defendant Pirone was properly denied qualified immunity for his initial detention of Reyes, the Brysons, and Greer; Pirone was not entitled to qualified immunity for conducting a de facto arrest of Reyes and the Brysons; Pirone was not entitled to qualified immunity from Greer's unlawful arrest claim; and to the extent the district court relied on Dubner v. City and County of San Francisco to deny Defendant Domenici immunity, its judgment was vacated. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, dismissed in part, and remanded. View "Johnson v. BART" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican national, petitioned for review of the BIA's orders finding her ineligible for cancellation of removal and denying her motion to reopen. The court concluded that petitioner "resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status" under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2) where maintenance of lawful status after the admission was not required and where petitioner's brief trip to Mexico on advance parole did not end her period of continuous residence. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review in regard to this issue. The court concluded, however, that the BIA properly denied petitioner's motion to reopen because she could not retract her concessions of removeability. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review in regard to this issue. View "Galindo v. Holder" on Justia Law

This case concerned applications to transfer water rights from agricultural land in the Newlands Reclamation Project to the Carson Lake and Pasture, a wildlife refuge located within the Lahontan Valley wetlands at the terminus of the Carson River. At issue was whether diverting water to wetlands in order to sustain wildlife habitat constituted "irrigation." Concluding that the Tribe had Article III standing, the court held that diversion of water for waterfowl habitat was not "irrigation" within the meaning of the Alpine decree. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Nevada" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative consumer class action suit against DirecTV and Best Buy, alleging violations of California's consumer protection laws. The arbitration agreement at issue in this instance was a customer service agreement between DirecTV and individuals who believed they purchased DirecTV equipment from Best Buy stores. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion held that Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 2, preempted the State of California's rule rendering unenforceable arbitration provisions in consumer contracts that waive collective or class action proceedings. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement in this case was enforceable under Concepcion and, therefore, the district court did not err in compelling plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against DirecTV. The court concluded, however, that plaintiffs were not required to arbitrate their claims with Best Buy. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc." on Justia Law

The Tribe and CTGW brought suit against the County for imposing property taxes on the Great Wolf Lodge located on the Grand Mound Property, which was tribal land held in trust by the government. At issue was whether state and local governments have the power to tax permanent improvements built on non-reservation land owned by the United States and held in trust for an Indian tribe. The court concluded that Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones made it clear that where the United States owns land covered by 21 U.S.C. 465, and holds it in trust for the use of a tribe, section 465 exempts permanent improvements on that land from state and local taxation. Accordingly, under Mescalero, the County was barred from taxing the Great Wolf Lodge during the time in which the Grand Mound Property was owned by the United States and held in trust under section 465. Therefore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the County. View "Chehalis Tribes v. Thurston Cnty." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that deputies used excessive force against her late husband and that a deputy unreasonably seized her when he kept her from the crime scene. At issue was whether a reasonable jury could determine that the deputies violated the Constitution when they fatally shot the husband - an armed homeowner on his patio. In this instance, the court concluded that a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the deputies' use of excessive force was constitutionally excessive where, among other things, the husband was not in the vicinity when the deputies arrived and plaintiff appeared unscathed and not in jeopardy. Accordingly, the court concluded that the deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court dismissed plaintiff's cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "George v. Morris, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of federal drug-trafficking felonies, appealed his sentence. The district court sentenced defendant as a "career offender" under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 because he had two prior convictions for "crimes of violence." The court concluded that defendant's prior conviction for criminal property damage in the first degree under section 708.820(1)(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes was categorically a crime of violence under the residual clause of section 4B1.2(a)(2). Further, defendant's claim that section 4B1.2(a)(2)'s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague was foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Spencer" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree murder, petitioned for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that the prosecution's failure to disclose that the police dog had a history of mistaken identifications violated Brady v. Maryland, and the California Court of Appeal's decision to the contrary was an unreasonable application of Brady. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and reversed the district court's judgment on the Brady claim. View "Aguilar v. Woodford" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of money laundering, bank fraud, loan fraud, and conspiracy to commit loan and bank fraud. On appeal, defendant challenged his convictions, which stemmed from a Los Angeles-based scheme to defraud mortgage lenders. The court affirmed, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions and, therefore, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for acquittal. View "United States v. Grasso" on Justia Law