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

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of his wife's estate, filed suit against Desert View and Dr. Tannoury, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794; and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. Plaintiff alleged that his health care providers failed to communicate effectively with a person who is deaf. The district court granted in part and denied in part Dr. Tannoury's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that plaintiff has now shown a real and immediate threat that he will be denied effective communication by defendants either as a patient in his own right or as a companion to another patient. Because plaintiff's complaint is "jurisdictionally defective" and he has failed to introduce any evidence to cure the defect, he lacked standing to bring his ADA claims. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Because each and every discrete discriminatory act causes a new claim to accrue under Section 504, any discriminatory acts that Desert View or Dr. Tannoury took after September 1, 2008 are actionable. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in finding the claims under the Rehabilitation Act untimely. The court reversed the judgment of the district court as to the Rehabilitation Act claims and the state law claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ervine v. Desert View Reg'l Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

California prisons have been operating under a receivership since 2006 to comply with consent decrees. This appeal involved provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. 3626, relating to the termination of such decrees. After the Supreme Court affirmed the three-judge court decision concerning the release orders in this case, the three-judge court in early 2013 asked the State when it intended to file a motion to terminate. The State responded that it hoped to be able to file within a few months. Plaintiffs indicated their need to file an informed response to such motion and the district court ordered the State to disclose its expert witnesses and their reports at least 120 days before it filed a motion to terminate. The court concluded that the district court's order was a sensible scheduling order designed to provide the court and plaintiffs with adequate notice of the evidence the State intended to rely upon in a motion to terminate; the order established a schedule for expert disclosures that was consistent with the State's own time line, and did not affect the operation of the automatic stay; and there was no clear error in the district court's issuance of the order. The court need not reach plaintiffs' claim that without the notice provisions of the order, the automatic stay provision violates due process. Accordingly, the court denied what the court construed as the State's Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. View "Plata v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences for producing and possessing a sexually explicit video depicting a fourteen-year-old girl (Counts 1 and 2 respectively). The court concluded that venue was proper in regards to Count 1, 18 U.S.C. 2251(a); Count 1 and Count 2, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B), were constitutionally applied to defendant; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence contained from his laptop where the district court did not err in striking the balance between the intrusion into defendant's interest and the opposing law enforcement interests in favor of the government; because defendant's prior convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age and oral copulation with a minor under 16 years of age categorically relates to sexual abuse as that phrase is ordinarily understood, the district court properly applied the mandatory minimum enhancement provisions to defendant's prior state convictions. Because the court could not tell if the district court would impose the same sentence if it applied the correct legal analysis when sustaining defendant's objection to the inclusion of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, the court remanded for resentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for importation of marijuana. The court rejected defendant's contention that the prosecutor improperly vouched and violated the advocate-witness rule where defendant failed to demonstrate that the prosecutorial error in this case affected his substantial rights. The court concluded, however, that the district court did not adequately explain why it declined to apply the two-level sentence reduction under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(16). Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Rangel-Guzman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against two officers, a medical doctor, and nurse alleging that they violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when the doctor, forcibly and without consent, removed a plastic baggie containing cocaine base from plaintiff's rectum. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officers. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim, holding that the doctor's actions could be attributed to the state, based on the court's holding that a reasonable jury could conclude that the officers provided false information, encouragement, and active physical assistance to the doctor; therefore, the officers could be held responsible for the procedures performed by the doctor; based on the Winston v. Lee factors, a jury could conclude that the procedures performed by the doctor violated the Eighth Amendment; and the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court affirmed summary judgment as to the Fourteenth Amendment claim where plaintiff has not identified a single case finding a Fourteenth Amendment violation under circumstances like those here. The court declined to address issues related to the doctor. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "George v. Edholm, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to a one-count information alleging that he reentered the country without authorization after being removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. On appeal, defendant challenged his 42-month sentence as exceeding the maximum sentence allowed under the operative statute. In this case, the district court accepted defendant's plea without requiring him to admit the removal date essential to the enhanced sentence. Because defendant did not admit to the 2011 removal date, the district court's sentence of more than two years, unlike the sentence in United States v. Mendoza-Zaragoza, did not rest on an admission by the defendant, and so violated Apprendi v. New Jersey. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Guerrero-Jasso" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's dismissal of an indictment against defendant for financial aid fraud. Defendant, a counselor and professor at a community college, assisted students in obtaining federal financial aid by falsifying and electronically submitting FAFSA forms. The court concluded that 20 U.S.C. 1097(a) does not require a defendant to personally receive or exercise control over federally insured funds obtained by fraud. The court held that the statute encompasses the act of taking money from the government via false statements and causing it to be disbursed by others. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment and reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Ezeta" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. The court concluded that the district court correctly applied a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his prior conviction for battery with injury on a peace officer in violation of California Penal Code 243(c)(2) because section 243(c)(2) is a categorical crime of violence under the Guidelines. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Colon-Arreola" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of India, petitioned for review of the BIA's order concluding that he is ineligible for withholding of removal. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that the government showed that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances on the treatment of Sikhs in India to overcome the presumption that he would be persecuted if he were removed. The evidence introduced by the government was sufficiently individualized to address petitioner's claim that he would be persecuted because of his past involvement with the Akali Dal (Mann) party. The general principle requiring the factfinder and a court of appeals to accept a petitioner's factual contentions as true in the absence of an adverse credibility finding does not prevent the court from considering the relative probative value of hearsay and nonhearsay testimony. The agency properly performed its core functions of weighing conflicting evidence, bringing its expertise to bear, and articulating the rationale underlying its decision. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Singh v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging California's Political Reform Act of 1974, Cal. Gov. Code 81000-91014 (PRA), which requires political committees to report certain information about their contributors to the State. Plaintiffs are political committees that supported the November 2008 passage of Proposition 8 and argued that their donors have been harassed as a result of the PRA disclosures. Plaintiffs sought an injunction exempting them from the PRA's future reporting deadlines and declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the State to purge all records of their past PRA disclosures. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State on all counts. The court held that Family PAC v. McKenna directly precluded plaintiffs' challenge to the $100 contribution threshold and the government's interest in disclosing contributions to ballot initiative committees is not merely a pre-election interest. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment with regard to plaintiffs' facial challenges to the post-election reporting requirements. In regard to plaintiffs' as-applied challenges, the court concluded that plaintiffs' request for an injunction does not present a live controversy where the information that plaintiffs seek to keep private has been publicly available on the Internet and in hard copy for nearly five years; plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief did not fall within the mootness exception for cases that are capable of repetition, yet evading review; and plaintiffs' claim for forward-looking relief is not ripe for judicial review. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded with instructions. View "ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen" on Justia Law