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

Petitioner, convicted of bank robbery and sentenced to life in prison, appealed the district court's dismissal of part of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner argued that, because he was raising a Brady claim, he was not bound by the holdings of Coleman v. Thompson, which precluded relief when a claim was not exhausted during the post-conviction review process on account of lack of counsel or ineffective assistance of counsel. In Martinez v. Ryan, the court declared that where ineffective assistance of counsel in a post-conviction relief proceeding resulted in a failure to assert that there was ineffective assistance of counsel in the trial proceedings, the claim would be cognizable. The court rejected petitioner's claim and concluded that the court was bound by Coleman and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hunton v. Sinclair" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine (Count 1), conspiracy to affect commerce by robbery and extortion (Count 2), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and aiding and abetting (Count 3). The court held that the district court erred in its characterization of the United States v. Spentz holding where the district court should have told the jury that the amount of drugs or the profit that would be derived from their sale could not on its own establish an inducement supporting entrapment. Accordingly, the court reversed Count 1 and remanded for a retrial. The court also held that, under certain circumstances, a sentencing entrapment instruction must be given to the jury. The court offered suggested entrapment and sentencing entrapment instructions that it believed would provide greater clarity. The court affirmed Count 2, rejecting the argument that the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, was limited to the stealing of lawful property and excluded contraband. The court did not reach the remaining challenges, which were moot in light of the remand. View "United States v. Cortes" on Justia Law

Arizona’s 2010 Senate Bill 1070 includes various immigration-related provisions, passed in response to the growing presence of unauthorized aliens in Arizona. The stated purpose of S.B. 1070 is “to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and government agencies in Arizona” by creating “a variety of immigration-related state offenses and defin[ing] the immigration-enforcement authority of Arizona’s state and local law enforcement officers.” Section 13-2929 of the Bill attempts to criminalize transporting, concealing, harboring, or attempting to transport, conceal, or harbor an unauthorized alien under certain circumstances and to criminalize inducing or encouraging an unauthorized alien to come to or reside in Arizona. The district court entered a preliminary injunction with respect to 13-2929 on the basis that it is preempted by federal law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the statute, as written, is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause because one of its key elements—being “in violation of a criminal offense”—is unintelligible. The provision is also preempted by federal law and invalid under the Supremacy Clause. View "Valle del Sol, Inc. v. State of Arizona" on Justia Law

Schad is scheduled to be executed in Arizona on October 9, 2013, in Arizona for a 1978 murder. The Ninth Circuit previously affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Schad also unsuccessfully sought to enjoin a clemency hearing and to stay his execution, claiming that the Clemency Board was biased and subject to undue pressure by the Governor in violation of due process. The Arizona Clemency Board is appointed by the Governor and issues recommendations to the Governor, who may grant clemency only when the Board recommends it. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 31-402(A). The Ninth Circuit upheld denial of the injunction, stating that the record and the district court’s “well-reasoned decision” did not support challenges to the Board’s fairness. View "Schad v. Brewer" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, disabled state prisoners and parolees, filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., seeking disability accommodations. In these consolidated appeals, defendant challenged the scope of the district court's injunction in light of the amendments to California Penal Code 3056. The court concluded that the August 28 orders, which required California state officials to disseminate and implement a previously negotiated County Jail Plan for disabled persons and parolees, neither conflicted with section 3056 nor required more of defendants than was appropriate to assist in remedying the ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations for which they bear responsibility. Therefore, the court affirmed the remedial August 28 orders issued by the district court. Case No. 12-6018 was dismissed as moot and the court affirmed the district court's order in Case No. 12-17198. View "Armstrong v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with illegal reentry. The court held that the stipulated removal proceeding violated defendant's right to due process because he was denied his right to appeal the removal order. Further, the IJ violated 8 C.F.R. 1003.25(b) by finding defendant's waiver of rights "voluntary, knowing, and intelligent" on the basis of an insufficient record. The court affirmed the conviction, nonetheless, because the violations were harmless given that defendant was ineligible for voluntary departure at the time of the 2006 proceeding. The court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing because Arizona Revised Statute section 12-1405 did not constitute a "crime of violence" as defined by U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). In light of Descamps v. United States, the court no longer analyzed a statute missing an element of a generic offense, as here, under the modified categorical approach. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants seeking damages for his detention and treatment at Guantanamo Bay. At issue was whether the district court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, given the jurisdiction-stripping provisions in 28 U.S.C. 2241(e). Looking to the plain language of section 2241(e)(2), it was clear that this provision applied to plaintiff's claims, and that, as a result, no court, justice, or judge had authority to hear his action. The court concluded that Boumediene v. Bush did not address section 2241(e)(2), let alone strike it down; because section 2241(e)(2) was capable of functioning independently, and was consistent with Congress's basic objectives in enacting the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600, the court concluded that it was severable from section 2241(e)(1), and remained in effect, provided that it was constitutional; and section 2241(e)(2) was not unconstitutional as applied to him. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's claims and remanded. View "Hamad v. Gates, et al." on Justia Law

Loops, designer of a flexible toothbrush made for safe use in prisons, bid on a contract with the NYC-DOC. Amercare ultimately won the contract using a similar toothbrush. Amercare filed a defamation suit against Loops after Loops alleged that Amercare had engaged in procurement fraud. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by entertaining Washington's anti-SLAPP motion, Wash. Rev. Code 4.25.510; under section 4.25.510, Loops was immune for all statements made to government agencies; the statute of limitations barred claims regarding the product alteration and counterfeiting accusations; and Americare did not show a likelihood of satisfying the elements of defamation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Phoenix Trading, Inc. v. Loops LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the owner of a home warranty plan from First American, filed a class action complaint alleging that First American refused to make timely repairs, used substandard contractors, and wrongfully denied claims. The district court dismissed some of plaintiff's claims under Rule 12(b)(6); First American made an offer of judgment on plaintiff's remaining claims; and, when plaintiff did not accept the offer, the district court dismissed the remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's remaining claims. The court vacated the dismissal of the remaining individual claims, holding that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer that would fully satisfy plaintiff's claim was insufficient to render the claim moot. Therefore, plaintiff's remaining claims were not made moot by her refusal to accept First American's Rule 68 offer, even assuming that the offer would have fully satisfied her claims. View "Diaz v. First American" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder, appealed the district court's dismissal of his Rule 60(b) motion seeking to reopen the district court's 2006 denial of his original federal habeas petition. The court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed the Rule 60(b) motion as a second or successive petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Schad v. Ryan" on Justia Law