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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of an order of removal. Petitioner's attorney failed to appear at a scheduled merits hearing before an IJ because his license to practice law had been temporarily suspended. The IJ found that petitioner could have learned of his attorney's suspension as much as eleven days before the hearing and concluded that petitioner was not diligent in bringing his attorney's suspension. The IJ denied petitioner's motion to continue, proceeded with the hearing with petitioner unrepresented by counsel, and denied petitioner's application for asylum. The court concluded that petitioner's right to be represented by retained counsel was violated and that a petitioner so denied his right to counsel in an immigration proceedings was not required to demonstrate actual prejudice in order to obtain relief. Therefore, the court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Montes-Lopez, et al v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. The court affirmed the conviction and clarified that the outcome of the case was controlled by United States v. Valverde. Therefore, defendant's appeal was controlled by Valverde and the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250, applied retroactively to defendant at the time he failed to register as a sex offender. View "United States v. Mattix" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a realtor, filed suit under the California False Claims Act (CFCA), Cal. Gov't Code 12650-12655, against defendants on behalf of numerous California counties, alleging that defendants made false representations in naming MERS as a beneficiary in recorded mortgage documents in order to avoid paying recorded fees. Defendants moved to dismiss the qui tam action under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in dismissing his claims as jurisdictionally barred, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Bates v. Mortgage Electronic Registration, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of bringing in illegal aliens without presentation and defendant subsequently appealed. At issue was whether the government could deport an illegal alien who could provide exculpatory evidence from a criminal defendant. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the answer was self-evident pursuant to United States v. Ramirez-Lopez. On remand, the district judge shall decide whether to dismiss the charges against defendant with prejudice, as a consequence of the government's conduct. Should the district court permit a retrial, it shall determine whether the eight other deported witnesses were interviewed by the government agents, and if so, what they each said. The government shall provide testimony or declarations from border agents as to whether they interviewed the remaining members of the group and whether they took notes or otherwise recorded the statements. Defendant must also be allowed to present the videotape of Witness Garcia-Garcia's testimony, the transcript or both, as well as any evidence of what the other eight witnesses said. Defendant shall also be entitled to a missing-witness instruction as Witness Garcia-Garcia and, depending on what the district court finds, to the other eight deported witnesses as well. View "United States v. Leal-Del Carmen" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA dismissing his appeal of an order of removal. Petitioner argued that a finding that he engaged in illegal activity could not properly be made by officers at the border and that he was entitled to counsel until a final administrative determination had been made by an IJ and the BIA. The court held that the border officers were permitted to treat petitioner as an applicant for admission based on their conclusion that he had engaged in illegal activity, without waiting for a final administrative determination. The court also rejected petitioner's claim that his statements admitting the attempt to smuggle his niece across the border were coerced and used against him in violation of due process. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Gonzaga-Ortega, et al v. Holder" on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals concern the aftermath of the shooting of Kristin Marie Maxwell-Bruce by her husband, Lowell Bruce. The Maxwells brought suit against several parties. These interlocutory appeals concern two sets of claims. First, the Maxwells alleged various constitutional violations by the Sheriff's officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Second, the Maxwells sought tort damages under California law against the Viejas defendants, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). The court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity to the Sheriff's officers on the ground of qualified immunity to the Sheriff's officers with regards to the Maxwell's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim and Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims. The court reversed the district court's granting of the Viejas defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to tribal sovereign immunity, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Maxwell, et al v. County of San Diego, et al" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's dismissal of an indictment charging defendant with escape from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. 751(a). The district court concluded that defendant was not in "custody" within the meaning of section 751(a) when he left the residential reentry center where he was residing as a condition of his supervised release. The court agreed with the district court, concluding that defendant was not in custody, not serving a prison sentence, nor under conditions equivalent to custodial incarceration. View "United States v. Burke" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to coercion and enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b). Defendant contended that the district court erred when it calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range for his offense. The court held that the district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. 3A1.1 where the district court failed to determine that the victim was less able to defend herself and more deserving of societal protection than the typical minor enticed to participate in unlawful sexual activity nor did that court base its application of the adjustment on a finding that, by choosing the victim, defendant reached a new level of depravity as compared to other perpetrators of his crime. The court also held that the district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. 4B1.5(a) because defendant's juvenile adjudication did not constitute a "sex offense conviction." View "United States v. Nielson" on Justia Law

This dispute arose in the context of a multi-million dollar tax refund case pending in the district court. The government filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, requesting that the court vacate four district court orders directing the government to be represented at an initial court settlement conference by a representative with full authority to settle a civil tax refund lawsuit. The court held that the district court had the authority to order parties, including the federal government, to participate in mandatory settlement conferences, but that the exercise of such authority was subject to review for abuse of discretion. Based on the facts of this case, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in ordering a government representative with full settlement authority to appear at an initial settlement conference. Accordingly, the court granted mandamus relief and directed the district court to vacate the dispute orders. View "USA v. USDC, Mariana" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, injured in a bicycling accident, disputed Unum Life Insurance Company's calculation of his pre-disability earnings upon which his disability benefits were based. The court agreed with the district court that the applicable standard of review was abuse of discretion. The district court also correctly held that Unum was responsible both for evaluating benefits claims and paying them, it operated under a conflict of interest, which must be weighed as a factor in determining whether there was an abuse of discretion. However, in determining what weight ought to be given the conflict, the district court erred in three ways: First, it failed to apply the traditional rules of summary judgment to its analysis of whether and to what extent a conflict of interest impacted Unum's benefits determination. Second, it incorrectly held that certain internal memoranda between Unum's claims analyst and its in-house counsel were not discoverable. Finally, it did not take into account substantial evidence that Unum's conflict of interest infiltrated the entire decision-making process and therefore ought to be accorded significant weight. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Stephan v. Unum Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law