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

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence on a conditional guilty plea for being an alien found in the United States following deportation. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the BIA did not err in finding defendant removeable based on his conviction for use of drug paraphernalia, which was a conviction "relating to a controlled substance" under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). The court held that the IJ did not violate due process by failing to inform defendant of the possibility of relief through a waiver of inadmissibility under section 1182(h). The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. View "United States v. Oseguera-Madrigal" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss a civil rights complaint. The court held that government officials were absolutely immune from civil liability for the decision not to extradite or to request only limited extradition of a criminal defendant. The court held that because the decision whether or not to extradite a criminal defendant was intimately associated with the criminal phase of the judicial process, defendants in this case were entitled to absolute immunity to the extent they participated in making the extradition decision described in plaintiffs' complaint. View "Slater, et al v. Clarke, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs following a jury trial resolving plaintiff's claim that his mesothelioma was caused by occupational exposure to asbestos. Defendants contended that the district court abused its discretion by improperly admitting expert evidence. The court held that the district court did abuse its discretion when it failed to conduct a Daubert hearing or otherwise make relevance and reliability determinations regarding the expert testimony. The court held that the court's decision in Mukhtar v. California State University dictated that a new trial be provided in this circumstance. View "Barabin v. AstenJohnson Inc" on Justia Law

Debtors filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 13. At issue was whether debtors could exclude an annuity debtor received under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (RRA), 45 U.S.C. 451m(a), when calculating their "projected disposable income," which determined the amount they must repay creditors to qualify for Chapter 13 relief. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision was reviewable. Applying a trust law understanding of the statute pursuant to Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, the court held that the RRA's anti-anticipation clause, which provided that the payment of an annuity shall not be "anticipated," referred to premature receipt of payment, and thus did not preclude the inclusion of the RRA annuity payments in Chapter 13 debtors' projected disposable income. View "In re: Robert Scholz & Carolyn Scholz" on Justia Law

This appeal presented the question, among others, of what event triggered the running of the statute of limitations for a claim for wrongful disclosure of a tax return pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7431(d). The court concluded that the statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the government's allegedly unauthorized disclosures. The court also concluded, in the circumstances presented in this case, that the statute of limitations did not begin to run when plaintiffs became aware of a pending general investigation that would involve disclosures, but only later when they knew or should have known of the specific disclosures at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Aloe Vera of America, Inc., et al v. USA" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defense surrebuttal summation; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to excuse one of the prospective jurors for cause; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's proposed jury instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Maloney" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, cigarette vendors, appealed the district court's dismissal of their antitrust action against defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs challenged taxes imposed by the virtue of the authority vested in an Indian tribe. The court held that the tribe did not implicitly waive its sovereign immunity by agreeing to dispute resolution procedures nor by ceding its authority to Washington State when entering into a cigarette tax contract. The court also held that federal antitrust law did not explicitly abrogate tribal immunity, and the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, was not a law of general applicability vis-a-vis the tribe. The court further held that tribal officials were protected by the tribe's sovereign immunity because they acted pursuant to the tribe's authority. The court affirmed the district court's alternative ruling that the action was barred by res judicata in light of the prior litigation in state and tribal courts. View "Miller, et al v. Wright, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal. The court affirmed the sentence, holding that a prior conviction for "rape of a child in the third degree," in violation of Revised Code of Washington section 9A.44.079, categorically qualified as "statutory rape," which was a crime of violence for the purpose of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). View "United States v. Zamorano-Ponce" on Justia Law

Tim Wilborn appealed the reduction of attorneys' fees he earned while representing plaintiff in a Social Security benefits claim. At issue was whether Wilborn received fees for the same work under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412, and the Social Security Act (SSA), 42 U.S.C. 406(b)(1). The court held that the $5,000 award under the EAJA was for the "same work" as the work for which Wilborn received the section 406(b)(1) award, and therefore the district court correctly offset the $5,000 from the 25% award. View "Parrish v. Commissioner Social Security" on Justia Law

In this prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, plaintiff appealed from the dismissal with prejudice of his first amended complaint for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated his rights by failing to comply with his medical "chrono," which required him to be housed in a ground floor cell and that defendants failed to provide him with an interpreter at medical appointments. The court held that the district court erred by refusing to consider arguments that plaintiff raised for the first time in his objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations on defendants' motion to dismiss; concluding that defendant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; and dismissing his complaint on the ground that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Further, the district court erred by failing to provide notice pursuant to Rand v. Rowland. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Akhtar v. J. Mesa, et al" on Justia Law