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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of illegal reentry. The district court entered an order revoking supervised release based on that conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred in rejecting his challenges to three of the government’s peremptory strikes under Batson v. Kentucky. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in failing to reach the third step of the Batson framework without evaluating the persuasiveness of the government’s facially neutral reason for its peremptory strikes of three Hispanic individuals in the venire, but Defendant failed to show purposeful discrimination, and the record did not support such a finding on de novo review; and (2) the district court’s supplemental jury instruction, which clarified that the insanity defense would not apply if, while Defendant was illegally present in the United States, Defendant was sane for a long enough period to have left the country, was substantially correct and not coercive. View "United States v. Alvarez-Ulloa" on Justia Law

Thirteen inmates in custody throughout the Arizona prison system brought a class action suit against senior officials in the Arizona Department of Corrections alleging that they were subjected to systemic Eighth Amendment violations. The district court certified a class consisting of 33,000 prisoners incarcerated in the Arizona prison system, concluding that the putative class and subclass of inmates satisfied the requirements of class certification set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(a)(2). The panel subsequently voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Ikuta filed a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc concurrently with this order, arguing that all members of this diverse class of prisoners did not have an Eighth Amendment claim, alone a common claim, and therefore the certification ran afoul of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Lewis v. Casey, and the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. View "Parsons v. Ryan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of twelve felony counts related to a complex mortgage fraud scheme. Defendant filed two motions for a new trial, arguing that the government violated Brady v. Maryland by withholding material exculpatory evidence and violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The district court denied the motions, concluding that Defendant’s rights under Brady and the Fourth Amendment had not been violated. A panel of the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders denying Defendant’s motions for a new trial and remanded, holding that the district court (1) abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s requests for an evidentiary hearing and for discovery; (2) should reconsider Defendant’s Brady claims on an open record, in conjunction with the additional disclosure with which Defendant sought to augment the record on appeal; and (3) erred in concluding that an employee’s copying of documents from Defendant’s real estate and investment offices was not a search implicating the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Mazzarella" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, alleging that Defendants have a custom, policy and practice of racially profiling Latino drivers and passengers and of stopping them pretextually under the auspices of enforcing immigration-related laws. After a bench trial, the district court concluded that Defendants employed unconstitutional policies in relation to patrol operations and entered a permanent injunction against Defendants. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the permanent injunction, holding (1) Maricopa County, rather than the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, should have been named as the party in the action; (2) sufficient evidence supported the court’s finding that Defendants’ constitutional violations occurred during regular, non-saturation patrols; (3) the named plaintiffs had standing to assert the claims of absent class members who were stopped during non-saturation patrols; and (4) while many of the provisions of the injunction were narrowly tailored to remedy the specific constitutional violations found by the district court, some terms of the injunction were broader than necessary to cure the constitutional violations at issue in this case. Remanded. View "Melendres v. Arpaio" on Justia Law

Here a panel of the Ninth Circuit withdrew its opinion filed on February 25, 2015 and replaced it with this amended opinion. The panel reversed the district’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Sears, Roebuck and Co. in a suit filed by Plaintiff, a former employee of Sears. Plaintiff alleged three disability discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The panel concluded that Plaintiff presented triable claims under FEHA that deserved trial. The panel additionally noted (1) it was beside the point that some of Plaintiff’s evidence was self-serving because such testimony was admissible, though absent corroboration, it may have limited weight; and (2) a district court could disregard a self-serving declaration that stated only conclusions and not facts that would be admissible evidence. Remanded. View "Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck and Co." on Justia Law

A panel of the Ninth Circuit filed an amended opinion in this dispute regarding attorney’s fees. In the amended opinion, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to Capristrano Unified School District as the prevailing defendant in an action brought by the mother of a special education student alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The panel (1) agreed with the district court that the ADA and section 1983 claims were frivolous and affirmed the award of attorney’s fees and costs for representation relating to those claims; and (2) disagreed with the district court that the IDEA and Rehabilitation Act claims were frivolous and/or brought for an improper purpose and reversed the district court to the extent that it awarded attorney’s fees and costs related to the litigation of those claims. The cause was remanded. The panel also filed an order amending the opinion, denying a petition for rehearing and a suggestion for rehearing en banc, and directing the mandate to issue forthwith. View "C.W. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a physician, filed an employment discrimination action against the California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (CEP) in state court. CEP removed the suit to federal court. Prior to trial, the parties agreed in writing to settle the case. The settlement agreement included a provision that Plaintiff waive his rights to employment with CEP or at any facility that CEP may own or with which it may contract in the future. Plaintiff refused to execute the written agreement and attempted to have it set aside. The district court ultimately ordered that the settlement be enforced and dismissed the case, concluding that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16600, which provides that a contract is void if it restrains anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, did not apply because the no-employment provision in the settlement agreement did not constitute a covenant not to compete. A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) the parties’ dispute regarding whether the no-employment provision voided the settlement agreement was ripe for review under the traditional ripeness standard; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by categorically excluding the settlement agreement from the ambit of 16600 solely on the ground that it did not constitute a covenant not to compete. Remanded. View "Golden v. Cal. Emergency Physicians Med. Group" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to obstruct justice, accessory after the fact to mail fraud and securities law violations, altering documents to influence a federal investigation, and aiding and abetting false testimony at an SEC deposition. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err at sentencing by applying both the “Broker-Dealer” enhancement and the “Special Skill” enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines; (2) the district court did not err in calculating loss and victim amounts, as required under the Sentencing Guidelines; (3) Defendant was competent to waive his right to a jury trial, and his waiver was knowing and intelligent; and (4) the district court did not plainly err in (a) excluding a non-lawyer’s testimony reciting facts and the legal conclusion that Defendant did not break the law; (b) determining that the district court was capable of understanding an expert’s opinion regarding Defendant’s professional and ethical duties as an attorney; and (c) admitting coconspirator nonhearsay testimony. View "United States v. Tamman" on Justia Law

Two associations and two individuals brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 challenging two requirements that the State of California and the City of Chula Vista, California, place on persons who wish to sponsor a local ballot measure: (1) the requirement that official proponents of local ballot initiatives be electors, thereby excluding non-natural persons such as corporations and associations; and (2) the requirement that official initiative proponents identify themselves on the face of the initiative petitions. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The en banc court of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the requirement that the official proponent of an initiative be an elector does not violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association; but (2) the requirement that the name on the official proponent of an initiative be disclosed on the face of the initiative petitions satisfies exacting scrutiny under the First Amendment. View "Chula Vista Citizens for Jobs v. Norris" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of his stepdaughter. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence on direct appeal. Defendant later filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, listing thirteen purported errors by the Washington state courts. The district court denied habeas relief. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Washington Supreme Court did not act unreasonably on rejecting Defendant’s claim that his shackling on the first day of jury selection for the sentencing trial deprived him of the constitutional right to due process; (2) the Washington Supreme Court reasonably rejected Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims; (3) the Washington Supreme Court was not unreasonable in rejecting Defendant’s claims that he was deprived of his right to trial by an impartial jury because a juror lied during voir dire; and (4) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s challenges to his conviction and death sentence. View "Elmore v. Sinclair" on Justia Law