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

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his habeas petition. The court held that petitioner's first two claims on appeal, that the Arizona courts applied an unconstitutional causal nexus test to mitigating evidence and the Arizona courts failed to consider mitigation evidence of his history of substance abuse, were without merit. The court held that petitioner's third claim, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, was procedurally defaulted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Poyson v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against the Chief of Police and the City under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim. Plaintiff, a police officer for the City, led a no-confidence vote of the police officers' union against the Chief. The Chief subsequently delayed signing an application for a certification that would have entitled plaintiff to a five percent salary increase. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, concluding that plaintiff failed to meet his burden under Garcetti v. Ceballos, to show that he undertook his act as a private citizen and not pursuant to his official duties. The court disagreed and held that plaintiff had established a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation. Therefore, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Chief and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City because plaintiff did not adduce sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on his Monnell claim. View "Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's pretermission of her adjustment of status application. The BIA pretermitted petitioner's application on the ground that she did not satisfy the definition of "child" under 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E) because she was not adopted before her 16th birthday. The court held that the BIA's blanket rule against recognizing state courts' nunc pro tunc adoption decrees constituted an impermissible construction of section 1101(b)(1)(E) under Chevron because it gave little or no weight to the federal policy of keeping families together, failed to afford deference to valid state court judgments in an area of the law that was primarily a matter of state concern, and addressed the possibility of immigration fraud through a sweeping, blanket rule rather than considering the validity of nunc pro tunc adoption decrees on a case-by-case basis. The court also held that the BIA's determination that petitioner engaged in marriage fraud violated her rights to due process of law. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Amponsah v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Beneficiaries sued Edison under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Beneficiaries claimed that their pension plan had been managed imprudently and in a self-interested fashion. The court rejected both parties' timeliness arguments and affirmed the district court's application of ERISA's six-year limitations period. Because the DOL's interpretation of how the safe harbor functions were consistent with the statutory language, the court concluded that the district court properly decided that section 404(c) of Title I of ERISA did not preclude merits consideration of beneficiaries' claims. The court reserved the question of whether the Ninth Circuit should adopt a rule akin to that articulated in Spano v. Boeing Co. regarding class action certification. On the merits, the court was satisfied that revenue sharing as carried out by Edison did not violate ERISA; Edison did not violate its duty of prudence by including several investment vehicles in the Plan menu; but Edison had been imprudent in deciding to include retail-class shares of three specific mutual funds in the Plan menu. View "Tibble v. Edison International" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, various film studios, alleged that the services offered and websites maintained by defendant and his company, isoHunt, induced third parties to download infringing copies of the studios' copyrighted works. This case concerned a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol known as BitTorrent. The court affirmed the district court's holding that plaintiffs had carried their burden of proving, on the basis of undisputed facts, defendant's liability for inducing others to infringe plaintiffs' copyrights. The court also affirmed summary judgment to plaintiffs on defendant's claims that he was entitled to the safe harbors provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 512(a), (c), and (d). The court concluded that portions of the permanent injunction were vague or unduly burdensome, and therefore, modified the injunction in part. View "Columbia Pictures Industries v. Fung" on Justia Law

The government sought to forfeit two bundles of currency in the amounts of $11,500 and $2,971. Only one contrary claim was filed regarding both sets of currency. The district court concluded that the claimant failed to comply with Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rule G(5)(a)(iii), which required that a claim filed by a person asserting an interest as a bailee must identify the bailor. The court agreed with the district court that the requirement applied to the claimant, even though he initially asserted a different interest. The court concluded, however, that striking his claim based on that transgression was not mandatory but was instead subject to the sound exercise of discretion by the court. In this case, the dismissal of the claim to the $11,500 for that failure was an abuse of discretion, primarily because the omission did not prejudice the government or extend the forfeiture proceedings. The court further concluded that, even though the government had not given timely notice in regards to both sets of currency, the government was not required in these circumstances to return the property. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the government regarding the portion of currency amounting to $2,971. The court vacated the judgment in favor of the government as to the $11,500 portion and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Guerrero, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought suit on behalf of a class of individuals from China who were seeking to acquire permanent resident status in the employment-based third preference category (EB-3). Plaintiffs alleged that during the 2008-2009 fiscal years, defendants did not allocate immigrant visas to eligible applicants in the correct order, thereby delaying their applications, and their eligibility for adjustment of status. The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint because there was no live case or controversy about the establishment of visa cut-off dates, and the allocation of visa numbers, in the 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. The district court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief because they did not allege that defendants failed to take discrete actions they were legally required to take. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Li, et al. v. Kerry, et al." on Justia Law

FHFA, the regulator and conservator of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the Enterprises), issued a "directive" preventing the Enterprises from buying mortgages on properties encumbered by liens made under so-called property-assessed clean energy (PACE) programs. Plaintiffs contended that FHFA was acting as a regulator, and not a conservator. As a regulator, plaintiffs contended that FHFA must issue a regulation to effectuate its order. The court concluded that FHFA's decision to cease purchasing mortgages on PACE-encumbered properties was a lawful exercise of its statutory authority as conservator of the Enterprises. Because the courts have no jurisdiction to review such actions, the court vacated the district court's order and dismissed the case. View "County of Sonoma, et al v. FHFA, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Arizona capital prisoner convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend, appealed from the denial of his first habeas petition and sought authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition. The court rejected defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims under Strickland v. Washington; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's requests for evidentiary hearings on his various ineffective assistance claims; the Arizona Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when it denied petitioner's Eight Amendment claim regarding victim impact evidence; and because petitioner had not been able to demonstrate either due diligence or actual innocence as to his claims that where not presented in his first habeas petition, his application to file a second or successive application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition and denied his application to file a second or successive habeas petition. View "Gulbrandson v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the district court's denial of restitution and filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court held that the district court did not err in imposing a proximate cause requirement when applying 18 U.S.C. 2259(b)(3) and, in this respect, the petition was denied. The court's review of the record demonstrated that petitioners provided sufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between defendant's offense and petitioner's losses. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part. View "Amy & Vicky v. USDC-SAC" on Justia Law