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

Earnest Woods, a former inmate, sued the warden and appeals coordinator under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. First, the district court granted the warden's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Woods failed to connect him to the alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights. The court subsequently granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but only as to one of the two grievances. After proceeding to trial on the remaining grievance, Woods obtained a jury verdict against the appeals coordinator. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of the motion of summary judgment and the motion to dismiss, holding (1) Rand and Wyatt notices must be provided to pro se prisoner plaintiffs concurrently with motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment filed by defendants; and (2) the notice provided by the district court in this case, which preceded the filing of the motion for summary judgment by over a year and the motion to dismiss by more than two years, did not provide fair notice to Woods, a pro se prisoner plaintiff. View "Woods v. Carey" on Justia Law

Howard Back filed this suit alleging that Secretary of Heath and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius violated her duties under the Medicare Act and the Due Process Clause by failing to provide an administrative process for beneficiaries of hospice care to appeal a hospice provider's refusal to provide a drug prescribed by their attending physician. The district court granted the Secretary's motion for judgment on the pleadings because Back had not exhausted his administrative remedies. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and dismissed the appeal as moot, holding that although the government led Back to believe there was no appeal process, such a process did exist. Accordingly, no controversy existed and the appeal was moot. View "Back v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. In particular, Defendant challenged the district court's application of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), which imposes a 16-level enhancement where a defendant has previously committed a crime of violence. Defendant argued that the district court committed plain error by relying solely on the presentencing investigation report's (PSR) characterization of his prior conviction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) the district court plainly erred in basing its sentencing on the PSR's characterization of Defendant's prior offense as a crime of violence; and (2) the imposition of a substantially greater sentence based on the enhancement for committing a prior crime of violence clearly affected Defendant's substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings. View "United States v. Castillo-Marin" on Justia Law

David Day, an ERISA plan beneficiary, elected to roll over his pension benefits into an individual retirement account (IRA) upon separation from his employer, AT&T. Exercising its discretion, the plan's claims administrator construed Day's lump sum rollover as the equivalent of his having "received" his pension benefits and, according to the terms of AT&T's Disability Income Benefit Plan, reduced Day's long-term disability (LTD) benefits by the amount of the rollover. The district court entered judgment in favor of the plan. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the administrator reasonably interpreted the plan; (2) AT&T did not breach its fiduciary duties by failing to disclose the possibility that Petitioner's LTD benefits would be reduced by his receipt of pension benefits; and (3) the administrator's actions did not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. View "Day v. AT&T Disability Income Plan" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying him asylum and withholding of removal because he provided material support to a terrorist organization in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI). Petitioner argued that the BIA erred by applying the material support bar because (1) the organization Petitioner supported was engaged in legitimate political violence, and (2) Petitioner provided support under duress. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the material support bar does not include an implied exception for individuals who assist organizations engaged in legitimate political violence or who provide support under duress. View "Annachamy v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of racketeering and violence in aid of a racketeering enterprise. Although Defendant was entitled to exercise ten peremptory challenges, he was unable to do so because of a "use it or lose it" voir dire practice followed by the district court. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the district court's "use it or lose it" practice impermissibly deprived Defendant of two of the peremptory challenges to which he was entitled; but (2) under plain error review, reversal of Defendant's convictions was not warranted, as Defendant failed to demonstrate that the judicial proceedings were seriously affected by the district court's error. View "United States v. Yepiz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant, a California state prisoner, was found guilty of two counts of robbery. The district court subsequently dismissed as untimely three claims in Defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Defendant appealed, arguing that his claims were timely because the prosecutor withheld evidence that a witness for the prosecution at his trial received lenient treatment in her own criminal cases in return for testifying against Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to delayed commencement of the one-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act because the factual predicate of his claims could have been discovered had he exercised due diligence at his trial; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to equitable tolling because he did not exercise reasonable diligence, and no extraordinary circumstance prevented the timely filing of his claims. View "Ford v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

In this criminal pre-trial matter, a magistrate judge recommended denying a motion to suppress, but the district judge reversed that determination because he was inclined to disbelieve the testimony of government officials but did so without holding a de novo evidentiary hearing to hear any live testimony. At issue on appeal was whether the government's right to a de novo hearing before a district judge when the district judge departs from credibility findings of a magistrate judge is identical to that of defendants, even though the government cannot directly invoke the protections of the Due Process Clause. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court, holding that a district court abuses its discretion when it reverses a magistrate judge's credibility determinations, made after receiving testimony that is live and favorable to the government, without viewing key demeanor evidence, except where the district judge finds the magistrate judge's credibility determinations had no legally sufficient evidentiary basis, so that, were they jury determinations, judgment as a matter of law would issue for the defendant. View "United States v. Thoms" on Justia Law

Defendant CB&I Constructors, Inc. negligently caused a June 2002 wildfire that burned roughly 18,000 acres of the Angeles National Forest in Southern California. The United States brought a civil action against CB&I to recover damages for harm caused by the fire. The jury found CB&I liable and awarded roughly $7.6 million in fire suppression, emergency mitigation, and resource protection costs, and $28.8 million in intangible environmental damages. CB&I challenged the award for environmental damages. The district court held that the government provided sufficient evidence for the jury to determine the amount of environmental damages, and that the resulting award was not grossly excessive. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) under California law, the government was entitled to full compensation for all the harms caused by the fire, including intangible environment harm; and (2) substantial evidence supported the jury's determination of the amount of environmental damages, and the award was not grossly excessive. View "United States v. CB&I Constructors, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a). The BIA held that Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met the seven-year continuous residence requirement. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the petition, holding that the years of residence of Petitioner's mother were imputed to him based on Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales and Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. On remand, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) because Cuevas-Gaspar and Mercado-Zuzueta were no longer valid precedent, Petitioner's imputation argument concerning his mother's residence was without merit; and (2) the BIA correctly determined that Petitioner's 2002 conviction terminated his continuous residence. View "Sawyers v. Holder" on Justia Law