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

This case involved EPA's conditional registration of two pesticides, AGS-20 and AGS-20 U, that HeiQ Materials sought to apply to manufactured textiles. NRDC petitioned the court to vacate EPA's decision to conditionally register the pesticides. The court held that NRDC had Article III standing; EPA's decision not to use the body weight and other characteristics of infants in determining whether the pesticides placed consumers at risk, and instead using the characteristics of a three-year-old toddler, was supported by substantial evidence; and EPA's decision not to consider additional sources of exposure to nanosilver other than the pesticides in concluding that the product would not have unreasonable adverse effects on consumers was supported by substantial evidence. The court vacated EPA's decision insofar as it concluded that there was no risk concern requiring mitigation for short- and intermediate-term aggregate oral and dermal exposure to textiles that were surface coated with the pesticide. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part NRDC's petition for review. View "NRDC v. EPA" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from Seven Arts's attempts to establish ownership of copyrights in several motion pictures: "Rules of Engagement," "An American Rhapsody," and "Who is Cletis Tout?" Seven Arts filed suit against Paramount and Content Media for copyright infringement, a declaration of ownership rights, and an accounting, seeking a declaration that neither Content Media, nor its predecessors-in-interest, CanWest, was the owner or grantee of rights to the films. The action was filed over three years after Paramount plainly and expressly repudiated Seven Arts's copyright ownership by choosing to continue paying royalties to CanWest and Content Media, rather than to Seven Arts's predecessors. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that an untimely ownership claim will bar a claim for copyright infringement where the gravaman of the dispute was ownership, at least where, as here, the parties were in a close relationship. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the district court properly dismissed the suit because it was apparent from the complaint that Paramount clearly and expressly repudiated Seven Arts's ownership of the copyrights more than three years before Seven Arts brought suit. View "Seven Arts v. Content Media" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple from Pakistan, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of their appeal from a final order of removal under section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B), because they remained in the United States for longer than permitted. The order also held that the wife was removeable for misrepresenting a material fact, and declared that the wife had filed a frivolous asylum application. Where, as here, the sole witness refused to answer questions, DHS could not satisfy its burden in the absence of any substantive evidence based solely upon the adverse inference drawn from silence. Therefore, the court concluded that DHS did not meet its burden of establishing the grounds for termination of asylum by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the court did not reach the merits of petitioners' remaining arguments. The court granted the petition for review. View "Urooj v. Holder" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from an action to abate gang activity under California's general public nuisance statutes. The Orange County District Attorney's Office (OCDA), on behalf of the state, filed a public nuisance action against the Orange Varrio Cypress Criminal Street Gang (OVC). OCDA subsequently obtained a default judgment, including a permanent injunction (the Order) against OVC and others. Plaintiffs, individuals of whom OCDA and the Orange Police Department (OPD) served the Order and Notice, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that OCDA and OPD's "dismiss-and-serve strategy" violated the procedural due process clauses of the U.S. and California constitutions. The court concluded that the district court properly declined to abstain under Younger v. Harris; plaintiffs' suit was not a forbidden de facto appeal barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to abstain from granting relief under general principles of comity and federalism; and the court evaluated the district court's discretionary decision to grant relief under the Colorado River doctrine rather than under Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am. The court reversed the district court's judgment against Rackauckas on plaintiffs' second claim for relief in light of Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Alderman. Further, the court concluded, inter alia, that the Order profoundly implicated liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause; the district court correctly determined that the Mathews v. Eldridge factors "weigh clearly in favor" of the conclusion that defendants violated plaintiffs' procedural due process rights by failing to provide any form of hearing before subjecting them to the Order; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's issuance of declaratory and injunctive relief in plaintiffs' favor. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Vasquez v. Rackauckas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against police officers for violations of his Fourth Amendment right in their searches and seizures and plaintiff's arrest pursuant to warrants. Defendant was arrested for disseminating indecent materials to minors. The court concluded that the officers demonstrated their entitlement to the Messerschmidt v. Millender "shield of immunity" from suit and that the claims against them should be dismissed. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of the officer's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity and remanded. View "Armstrong v. Asselin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of attempted murder, appealed from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition as untimely. The court concluded that a section 2254 petition was not statutorily tolled during the 100-day gap between the denial of his State Court of Appeals Petition and the filing of his State Supreme Court Petition. Therefore, petitioner's section 2254 petition was not timely filed. Further, petitioner failed to make a showing of actual innocence under Schlup v. Delo. The district court properly reached its decision without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Stewart v. Cate" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to a single count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Defendant's appeal concerned the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, and the related amended Sentencing Guidelines ranges for offenses involving crack cocaine. The court concluded that defendant did not waive her right to appeal the reduced sentence; under the plain language of 28 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), the district court was required to apply U.S.S.G. 1B1.10 and the district court concluded correctly that under the revised version of section 1B1.10, it could not adjust defendant's sentence below 70 months; the two-step analysis in Dillon v. United States did not hinge to any degree on the substantive content of section 1B1.10 and an amendment of that policy did not affect the two-step process; the district court properly followed the two-step process by first determining that a reduction below 70 months would be inconsistent with section 1B1.10 as revised and declined to grant defendant's full motion; and the court rejected defendant's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v.Tercero" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting a senseless murder in a public bus. The prosecutor neglected, however, to discharge his obligation to disclose material information that would have enabled defense counsel to impeach the credibility of a critical witness against defendant. Applying de novo review, the court concluded that the prosecutor violated defendant's right to due process under Brady v. Maryland and defendant was entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus and release defendant from custody unless the district attorney timely initiated proceedings for a new trial. View "Amado v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to 450 months' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued that his guilty plea and sentence must be set aside because the district court impermissibly and prejudicially participated in his plea negotiations. The court followed United States v. Davila and reviewed the district court's alleged violation of Rule 11(c)(1) in light of the prejudice inquiry required. The court found that the district court participated in the parties' plea discussions by prematurely committing itself to a sentence of a specific severity and the district court's participation prejudiced defendant. Accordingly, the court held that the plea must be vacated and the appeal remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Kyle" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate who has a history of bipolar disorder, delusions, Parkinson's disease, and hypertension, filed suit pro se against defendants, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The district court dismissed his claim and plaintiff, represented by counsel, appealed. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the appeal; affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Dr. Bannister because plaintiff failed to submit evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Dr. Bannister was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs; affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants Warden Neven and nurses Grisham, Diliddo, and Balao-Cledera because plaintiff expressly waived his appeal against them in his reply brief; vacated the clerk's entry of judgment in favor of Defendant Dr. Sussman because the district court abused its discretion in failing to comply with Rule 4(m); vacated the district court's decision denying plaintiff's request for leave to amend his second amended complaint to name additional defendants; and remanded with instructions to comply with Rule 4(m) with respect to Dr. Sussman and to allow plaintiff leave to amend his second amended complaint. View "Crowley v. Bannister" on Justia Law