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

Petitioner sought federal habeas relief on the basis that the district court improperly instructed the jury on self-defense in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The jury instruction should have read: "An honest but unreasonable belief in the necessity for self-defense" but the Nevada Supreme Court used "an honest but reasonable belief." The error reduced the State's burden for convicting petitioner of murder instead of voluntary manslaughter. The instruction was facially erroneous in regard to the kind of provocation for manslaughter. The court concluded that the error was not harmless. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remanded with instructions. View "Dixon v. Williams, Sr., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at SRCI, filed suit pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that prison officials violated his due process rights by housing him in the Intensive Management Unit (IMU) for twenty-seven months without periodic, meaningful review of his status. The court concluded that plaintiff's conditions of confinement in the IMU implicated a protected liberty interest under any plausible baseline. Nonetheless, the court concluded that plaintiff's claims against the Oregon Department of Corrections and his damages claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff's remaining damages claims were barred by qualified immunity. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief because the record showed that plaintiff had been released from the IMU and there was no evidence that he was likely to again be subject to the challenged conditions. View "Brown v. Oregon Dept. of Corr." on Justia Law

Technica, a subcontractor on a federal construction project in California, filed suit under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. 3131-3134, against Candelaria, the prime contractor, and its surety CCIC. On appeal, Technica challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. The Supreme Court and the Eighth and Tenth Circuits have held that rights and remedies under the Miller Act may not be conditioned by state laws. The court applied their reasoning and held that the limitation in California Business and Professions Code 7031(a) on the right of a non-licensed contractor to maintain an action for collection of unpaid services did not apply to an action under the Miller Act. Because the California licensing requirement is not a defense to a claim under the Miller Act, the court need not address whether Technica falls within the labor provider exception to the statute. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded. View "Technica LLC v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for attempted entry after deportation and making a false claim of United States citizenship. The court concluded that the use of defendant's post-conviction silence to impeach him violated his rights under Doyle v. Ohio. The court concluded that a Doyle violation occurs where the prosecution uses defendant's post-invocation silence to impeach him, regardless of whether the police complied with Miranda. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant's conviction and remanded. View "United States v. Ramirez-Estrada" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, machinists at Pearl Harbor, filed suit against defendants under state tort law on the theory that defendants failed to warn them of the hazards posed by asbestos used in and around equipment defendants sold to the Navy. Defendant Crane removed the actions to federal court under the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442. The district court denied plaintiffs' motions to remand to state court and certified their orders for interlocutory appeal. The federal officer removal statute authorizes removal of a civil action brought against any person "acting under" an officer of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office." In this instance, Crane established that it is a "person" within the meaning of the statute, a causal nexus exists between plaintiffs' claims and the actions Crane took under the federal officer's direction, and it has a "colorable" federal defense to plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's orders. View "Leite v. Crane Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his habeas petition challenging the application of amended California Penal Code Section 2933.6 against him as a violation of his right against ex post facto application of the law. That amended Section 2933.6 applies only prospectively, only to intervening conduct, and does not result in the forfeiture of credits already earned makes it factually distinguishable from the ex post facto holdings in Weaver v. Graham and Lynce v. Mathis. In this case, petitioner's only intervening conduct - continued gang affiliation - triggered the reduction in time credits. Greenfield v. Scafati also does not support petitioner's position. Accordingly, the state court's denial of relief was not an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Nevarez v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Defendant is a United States citizen with a history of convictions for smuggling illegal aliens. At issue was whether defendant encouraged or induced an illegal alien to reside in the United States or aided and abetted the commission of this crime merely by escorting that alien from a fast food restaurant near the border to a nearby vehicle. The court concluded that encouraging an illegal alien to reside in the United States must mean something more than merely transporting such an alien within this country. On this scant record, no rational trier of fact could conclude that defendant encouraged an illegal alien to reside in the United States. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence to prove that defendant aided and abetted the commission of the crime. The court vacated the district court's judgment revoking defendant's supervised release and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition. View "United States v. Thum" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, seeking a judgment of acquittal. The court concluded that so long as the documents in an A-file have been properly admitted in the criminal case, and the jury has been instructed as to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, which is higher than the standard required in a deportation hearing, such documents may be considered by the jury and, depending on their contents, may constitute sufficient proof of alienage if the jury so concludes. Under Jackson v. Virginia, the jury verdict must stand where, as here, after receiving proper instructions, the jury concluded that defendant was guilty on all elements of illegal reentry and the verdict was supported with sufficient evidence. A rational trier of fact could certainly come to the conclusion that the Form I-213 was accurate. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying a judgment of acquittal and affirmed. View "United States v. Ruiz-Lopez" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief from his state murder conviction on the ground that his right against self-incrimination under Miranda v. Arizona was violated. At issue was whether a mid-trial conversation between a court bailiff and petitioner constituted an interrogation that must be preceded by a Miranda warning. The trial court concluded that there was no Miranda violation because there was no interrogation. The court concluded that the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply Miranda or its Supreme Court progeny. Despite the Warden's failure to brief the issue, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d), deferential standard of review still applied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hernandez v. Holland" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, San Francisco police officers over the age of forty, performed well enough on an examination in 1998 to qualify for consideration for promotion to Assistant Inspector. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that a new policy of the Police Department abandoning the examination as basis for certain assignments worked a disparate impact based on age. The district court denied certification of a class composed of all San Francisco Police Department officers over forty who had qualified on the 1998 examination. The court reversed the district court's denial of certification for want of commonality, concluding that the district court abused its discretion because it disregarded the existence of common questions of law and fact and impermissibly addressed the merits of the class's claims. View "Stockwell v. City & Ctny. of San Francisco" on Justia Law