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

Plaintiff is a former prison gang member and police informant. Defendants are producers of the documentary television series, "Gangland." Plaintiff filed suit for various claims alleging that defendants' failure to conceal his identity in an episode of "Gangland" endangered his life and cost him his job as an informant. On interlocutory appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion to strike the complaint under California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16. The court concluded that defendants have met their initial burden under the anti-SLAPP statute where defendants' acts in furtherance of their right of free speech were in connection with issues of public interest. The court also concluded that, at this juncture, plaintiff's claims were not barred by the release he signed. It follows that plaintiff's statements were not barred by the parole evidence rule. The court further concluded that plaintiff met his burden of showing a probability of prevailing on his claims for (1) public disclosure of private fact; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) false promise; and (4) declaratory relief. Plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable probability of prevailing on his claims for (1) appropriation of likeness and (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Doe v. Gangland Productions, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death on each of two counts of first-degree murder, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. On appeal, petitioner raised claims regarding the trial court's use of dual juries at trial; the trial court's use of a leg brace as a security measure during trial; and whether the sentencing judge properly considered all mitigating evidence under Lockett v. Ohio and Eddings v. Oklahoma. The court concluded that the district court properly denied relief on petitioner's "courtroom layout" and Lockett/Eddings claims, because the Arizona Supreme Court's decision denying relief was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court agreed with the State that the Lockett/Eddings line of cases held only that a sentencer must fully consider proffered mitigation evidence and did not affect a sentencer's determination of its weight. In this instance, the record made clear that the trial court adequately considered and weighed the mitigation evidence. The court also concluded that the district court properly denied relief on petitioner's remaining dual juries and "shackling" claims, because the claims were procedurally defaulted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "McKinney v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Warden appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In this instance, petitioner filed his federal petition well over one year after his conviction became final. However, the Supreme Court has long recognized, under Schlup v. Delo, that in a "narrow class of cases... implicating a fundamental miscarriage of justice," federal courts could hear the merits of a habeas petition despite an otherwise applicable procedural bar. Petitioner contended, and the district court concluded, that his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim should be considered on the merits despite its untimeliness because he is innocent. The court concluded that it was simply implausible that McQuiggin v. Perkins would alter the district court's conclusions about the credibility of petitioner's evidence, because the district court already undertook the precise analysis that Perkins prescribes. Because the court concluded that petitioner met the demanding Schlup standard, the court must exercise the "equitable discretion" of habeas courts to see that federal constitutional errors did not result in the incarceration of innocent persons. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that petitioner had made the requisite showing that he is actually innocent. View "Larsen v. Soto" on Justia Law

Barry Bonds's conviction of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503, arose from Bonds's testimony before a grand jury investigation regarding whether the proceeds of the sales of performance enhancing drugs were being laundered. The court held that 18 U.S.C. 1503 applied to factually true statements that were evasive or misleading. Bonds could not escape criminal liability under section 1503 by contending that his response that he was a "celebrity child" was true. The court also concluded that Bonds's contention that his conviction should be reversed on the ground that section 1503 did not apply to a witness's statements before the grand jury was foreclosed by established precedent; the court rejected Bonds's argument that the use of the word "corruptly" in section 1503 was unconstitutionally vague and failed to put him on notice that his conduct was criminal; the indictment was sufficient; and the indictment and the jury instructions made clear that Bonds could be convicted on the basis of individual statements that were evasive or misleading. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bonds" on Justia Law

Petitioner, born in Mexico, appealed the denial of her request for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court issued the opinion to clarify that DHS could seek to terminate a prior grant of withholding of removal in conjunction with removal proceedings as long as DHS met its burden of demonstrating the grounds for doing so. The court held that two separate proceedings were not required under 8 C.F.R. 1208.24(f). The court concluded that: (1) DHS could file a Notice of Appeal when an alien was subject to an extant withholding of removal; (2) there need not be a separate hearing on the termination of the withholding; (3) the government had the burden of demonstrating by the preponderance of the evidence the grounds for the termination of withholding; (4) the government met its burden by submitting official state records of petitioner's state convictions; and (5) petitioner had not shown a denial of procedural due process because her proceedings were not fundamentally unfair and further proceedings would not have changed the outcome. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Gutierrez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's order granting defendant's motion to suppress and the order denying the government's motion for reconsideration. Defendant had given a border patrol agent permission to "look in" or "search" the two cell phones he had with him but the agent did not ask him whether he would also consent to the agent's answering any incoming calls. Nonetheless, when one of the phones range while the agent was conducting his search, the agent answered it, passing himself off as defendant. By answering the call, the agent obtained information leading to defendant's arrest and felony charges of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens. The court rejected the government's claims that defendant did not have standing; in this instance, the agent's answering of the phone exceeded the scope of the consent that he obtained and, thus, violated defendant's Fourth Amendment right; the agent's impersonation of the intended recipient constituted a meaningful difference in the method and scope of the search in contrast to merely pushing a button in order to view a text message; consent to search a cell phone was insufficient to allow an agent to answer that phone, rather, specific consent to answer was necessary; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment as to both orders. View "United States v. Lopez-Cruz" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his petitions for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that most of the new evidence was cumulative and minimally significant; that non-cumulative evidence including allegations of sexual abuse, cerebral dysfunction and fetal alcohol syndrome were unsubstantiated by petitioner; most of the remaining evidence was speculative and came nowhere close to showing deficient performance; and the remaining evidence was minimally relevant at best. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Schurz v. Schriro" on Justia Law

This case arose out of the handcuffing and removal from school of then eleven-year-old C.B. by Sonora Police officers. The district court rendered a verdict ostensibly in favor of defendants, but the district court concluded that the verdict was incomplete and inconsistent and directed them to re-deliberate. On appeal, the court concluded that the unscripted supplemental jury instructions, together with the problematic verdict form, gave the jury the misimpression that its initial answers to Questions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were internally inconsistent and needed to be revised. The court also concluded that Officers McIntosh and Prock were entitled to qualified immunity with regard to plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 because the law was, and still is, not "clearly established" that handcuffing and driving a juvenile from school to a relative's place of business implicated Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court vacated the verdict and judgments, remanding for further proceedings. The district court was instructed to enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of individual defendants McIntosh and Prock as to the 1983 claims. The court did not address whether defendants were entitled to an offset of the amount paid in settlement by the school district and one of the school's teachers. View "C. B. v. City of Sonora, et al." on Justia Law

The Conservancy alleged that the United States was improperly diverting water from Icicle Creek, a tributary of the Wenatchee River, to the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery and otherwise violating Washington state law. The court dismissed the action, concluding that the Conservancy lacked prudential standing to bring its claim that the Hatchery operation violated the Washington water code, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the Conservancy's other claims because they either did not challenge final agency action or rested on provisions of Washington law that were not incorporated into federal reclamation law. View "Wild Fish Conservancy v. Jewell" on Justia Law

This case concerned the California Franchise Tax Board's wish to assess $13 million in unpaid income taxes on the individual partners of a general partnership that owned the property at issue, the Wilshire Courtyard. At issue on appeal was whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding where the partnership was reorganized into a limited liability company. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court had neither "arising under" nor "arising in" subject matter jurisdiction over the present dispute; the bankruptcy court did, however, have "related to" jurisdiction over the present dispute; and bankruptcy court jurisdiction did not violate the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341. Accordingly, the court reversed the bankruptcy appellate panel's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re: Wilshire Courtyard" on Justia Law