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

The CDCR, in an effort to meet the religious exercise needs of prison inmates, maintained paid full-time and part-time chaplain positions of five faiths: Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Native American, and Protestant (the Policy). Plaintiffs claimed, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, that various entities and individuals violated their federal and state constitutional rights by refusing to hire a paid full-time Wiccan chaplain and by failing to apply neutral criteria in determining whether paid chaplaincy positions were necessary to meet the religious exercise needs of inmates adhering to religions outside the five faiths. Because plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded facts supporting a plausible claim under the Establishment Clause and the California State Constitution, the court reversed and remanded both claims to the district court for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' remaining claims. View "Hartmann, et al v. California Dept. of Corrections, et al" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from plaintiffs' complaint asserting state and federal causes of action against eight defendants. At issue on appeal was the district court's award of attorney's fees and costs to Plaintiff Joseph Padgett. The court vacated the district court's award of costs and attorney's fees because the district court provided no explanation of how it calculated them. The court remanded to the district court for an explanation of how it used the lodestar method to reduce Padgett's fees and how it calculated Padgett's reduced costs. For the same reason, the district court erred in failing to explain why it denied costs to the prevailing defendants. While the district court had discretion to depart from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) in appropriate cases, the court could not review its unexplained order for abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Padgett, et al v. Loventhal, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City and two of its police officers, in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the police officers retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech after he was cited for a noise violation. The court held that plaintiff had put forth facts sufficient to allege a violation of his clearly established First Amendment right to be free from police action motivated by retaliatory animus, even if probable cause existed for that action. Therefore, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity and plaintiff's claims should proceed to trial. View "Ford v. City of Yakima, et al" on Justia Law

Good News appealed from the district court's determination on remand from the Ninth Circuit that the Town's ordinance restricting the size, duration, and location of temporary directional signs did not discriminate between different forms of noncommercial speech in an unconstitutional manner. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the court held that the ordinance was not a content-based regulation and was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. Accepting the court's opinion in Reed as law of the case, the court concluded that the Sign Code was constitutional because the different treatment of types of noncommercial temporary signs were not content-based as that term was defined in Reed, and the restrictions were tailored to serve significant government interests. Good News' other challenges did not merit relief. Further, the court determined that the amendments to the Sign Code made by the Town during the pendency of the appeal did not moot this case and that Good News could file a new action in the district court should it wish to challenge the new provisions of the Sign Code. View "Reed, et al v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Filipino World War II veterans and their widows, contended that their Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection were violated by a statute establishing the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund (FVEC) and by the VA's administration of it, resulting in their lack of payment. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice on the pleadings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The court held that the Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, div. A, 102 Stat. 4105, barred review of plaintiffs' due-process claim and the district court's dismissal of the claim was appropriate. Because plaintiffs' complaint did not challenge a new classification established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 1002(i), 123 Stat. at 202, and did not allege any plausible facts suggesting that the classification in 38 U.S.C. 107 was created for a discriminatory purpose, the court held that the district court did not err when it dismissed the equal-protection claim under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Recinto, et al v. The U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against officials from the California State Prison, alleging constitutional violations relating to his six-day placement on contraband watch. Plaintiff was placed on contraband watch after three unlabeled bottles found in his prison cell tested positive for methamphetamine. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part but denied summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment and due process claims against Defendant Mandeville and Rosario. The court held that both Defendant Mandeville and Rosario were entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time plaintiff was on contraband watch did not clearly establish that their actions were unconstitutional. View "Chappell v. Mandeville, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that defendants, correctional officers at the prison where he was incarcerated at the time of the alleged occurrence, violated his Eighth Amendment rights by spraying him with an excessive quantity of pepper spray. Plaintiff also alleged that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were disregarded when the officers denied him a vegetarian breakfast. The court held that the district court failed to draw all inferences in plaintiff's favor when resolving the issue of qualified immunity in a summary judgment and therefore, the court reversed and remanded on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Equal Protection challenge where plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the officers intentionally refused to provide him with a religious breakfast tray while providing the same to other inmates who were similarly situated. View "Furnace v. Sullivan, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Montblanc, and its President and CEO, Jan-Patrick Schmitz. The court concluded that Montblanc demonstrated that plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of store manager by offering her admissions that her disability prevented her from performing any work and plaintiff, in response, offered no submission establishing a triable issue of fact. Therefore, summary judgment on plaintiff's disability discrimination claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov't Code 12940(a), was proper. Because plaintiff pointed to no evidence that would raise a triable issue of whether Montblanc's true reason for terminating her employment was discriminatory, the court affirmed summary judgment on the retaliation claim under section 12940(h). Further, Schmitz's conduct during a store visit did not constitute harassment under section 12940(j). Finally, plaintiff's claim of intentional infliction of emotion distress failed where Schmitz's conduct could not be characterized as exceeding all bounds of that tolerated in a civilized community and plaintiff's alleged emotional distress was not "severe." Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims.View "Lawler v. Mountblanc North America, LLC, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action claiming that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs related to dental care. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's judgment as a matter of law in favor of Dr. Dillard and Dr. Fitter and judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Brooks. At issue was whether the district court erred when it instructed the jury on the question of whether Dr. Brooks could be held responsible for failing to provide services when he lacked resources. The court held that the principle contained in the instructions given in this case was a proper one where the instruction took into account the duties, discretion, and means available. The instruction, in effect, stated that if Dr. Brooks could not "render or cause to be rendered" the needed services because of a lack of resources that he could not cure, he also could not individually be liable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Peralta v. Dillard, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1995. Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court in California challenging a state court's denial of his request to obtain additional DNA testing pursuant to a state statute. Plaintiff alleged that he was the target of a conspiracy involving members of the county sheriff's department and others. The district court dismissed on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under that doctrine, the federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his first claim, which sought federal relief from the state court's determination in the DNA proceeding, and over his second and third claims, which were inextricably intertwined with the first. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court that his complaint was properly dismissed. The court also held that the district court did not err in implicitly denying plaintiff's request to amend his complaint. View "Cooper v. Ramos, et al" on Justia Law