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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition where the district concluded that the petition was timely but denied petitioner's claim on the merits. Relying on Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2011), petitioner argues that the California Court of Appeal's silence on timeliness triggers an exception to the general "look through" rule under which the California Court of Appeal's one-line denial of his petition would presumptively be considered a tacit affirmation of the superior court's finding of untimeliness.The panel declined to extend Trigueros to new contexts, concluding that there are at least two materially important distinctions between this case and Trigueros. First, Trigueros centers around a ruling from the California Supreme Court, while the case at hand centers around a ruling from the California Court of Appeal. Second, the California Supreme Court in Trigueros ordered "an informal response on the merits," Trigueros, while the California Court of Appeal here merely requested a general "opposition to the petition." Therefore, the panel declined to apply Trigueros in this context and concluded that the government's failure to present certain additional arguments does not prevent it from addressing these matters in this appeal. View "Flemming v. Matteson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order, dismissing on ripeness grounds, an action brought by Twitter against the Attorney General of Texas, in his official capacity, alleging First Amendment retaliation. Specifically, Twitter alleged that the service of a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) by the OAG to Twitter after the company banned President Donald Trump for life following the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, was government retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment. Twitter asked the district court to enjoin the AG from enforcing the CID and from continuing his investigation, and to declare the investigation unconstitutional.The panel held that the case was not prudentially ripe because the issues were not yet fit for judicial decision where the OAG has not yet made an allegation against Twitter; where facts were not yet developed; and where Twitter need not comply with the CID, could challenge its enforcement, and could challenge the CID in state court. The panel stated that, while Twitter could suffer hardship from withholding consideration, adjudicating this case now would require determining whether Twitter has violated Texas's unfair trade practices law before OAG has a chance to complete its investigation. Furthermore, any hardship to Twitter from the alleged chill of its First Amendment rights was insufficient to overcome the uncertainty of the legal issue presented in the case in its current posture. View "Twitter, Inc. v. Paxton" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of an action brought by plaintiff, a federal prisoner, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and seeking damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff alleged that a correctional officer labeled him a snitch to other prisoners, offered them a bounty to assault plaintiff, and failed to protect him from the predictable assault by another prisoner.The panel construed the pro se complaint liberally and held that plaintiff's complaint alleged conduct beyond deliberate indifference. The panel applied Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), explaining that if the Supreme Court allowed a guard who is aware of and deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk that a prisoner will suffer medical harm from an asthma attack to be sued under Bivens, it was but a modest extension to allow a suit against a guard who creates the substantial risk of harm and then allows it to occur. The panel stated that, although this case represents a modest extension of Bivens, no special factors caution against extending the remedy to encompass this well-established claim, brought against a single rogue officer under the same constitutional provision applied in a well-recognized Supreme Court Bivens case. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Hoffman v. Preston" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of police officers in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiffs, alleging that defendants violated plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights to companionship and familial association when they shot and killed Sergio Ochoa.Reviewing the district court's decision de novo and viewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the panel concluded that the district court selected the correct legal test to assess whether the conduct here shocks the conscience, and it correctly concluded that it does not. In this case, the officers did not have time to deliberate before firing and the district court correctly applied the purpose-to-harm test in order to determine if the officers' conduct shocked the conscience. The panel explained that Ochoa had engaged in a domestic dispute that allegedly involved a gun while possibly under the influence of drugs, he had entered a stranger's home stating that he was armed with knives, he failed to yield to a police car, and drove erratically. Furthermore, Ochoa ignored repeated commands from the officers, refused to drop two kitchen knives, and then took a large step. Therefore, under the purpose-to-harm test, defendants did not violate plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights. Rather, the officers' actions reflected their attempts to satisfy legitimate law enforcement objectives: apprehension of an armed, dangerous suspect and protection of the safety of the officers, the home’s inhabitants, and the public. View "Ochoa v. City of Mesa" on Justia Law

In 1989, Oliver went to a Los Angeles church during evening service and shot three people, two of whom died. During a jury selection at Oliver’s trial on two counts of first-degree murder with special circumstances and attempted murder, the defense made four unsuccessful “Batson” motions, alleging that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to strike prospective jurors on the basis of race. Oliver argued that the prosecutor’s stated reason for striking V.H.—that V.H. acquitted in a rape case in his only prior jury service—was pretextual, as evidenced by the disparate treatment of S.P., who was allegedly similar to V.H. except for her race.The district court granted habeas relief. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part. In substituting its own factual findings for those of the state court, the district court neglected to frame the relevant question as whether a fair-minded jurist could reach a different conclusion. The decision of the California Supreme Court was not unreasonable and did not "rubber-stamp” the prosecutor’s proffered explanations or otherwise misapply the law. No U.S. Supreme Court decision establishes that detailed factual findings are required before an appellate court may give deference to a trial court’s Batson ruling. If the trial court’s inquiry was deficient, it was cured by the California Supreme Court’s searching analysis, which included a de novo comparative juror analysis. The court remanded to allow the district court to assess the strikes of three other prospective jurors. View "Oliver v. Davis" on Justia Law

Four months after passing the bar exam, Shane was appointed as counsel for Rogers in a 1981 capital case involving a triple murder. She was the only attorney in a Nevada State Public Defender's satellite office. Shane recognized that a “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) argument was her client’s only meaningfully supported defense. Another inexperienced public defender became co-counsel shortly before trial. Counsel failed to prepare their mental health experts for trial and to rebut foreseeable evidence. They did not even consult the expert appointed to address Rogers’s legal sanity at the time of the offense. Rogers was sentenced to death.The Ninth Circuit affirmed a judgment conditionally granting Rogers’s 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. The ineffective assistance claim was never adjudicated on the merits by the Supreme Court of Nevada. Rogers satisfied the “Strickland” test. Even applying the presumption of reasonableness, counsel’s investigation, preparation, and execution of the insanity defense fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Counsel’s most significant error was failing to consult the expert appointed to assess Rogers’s competency for trial and sanity at the time of the offenses; this error was compounded by the inadequate preparation of counsel’s mental health experts. Counsel's failures to rebut the prosecution’s expert and to explain the NGRI defense to the jury in opening statements fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. There was a reasonable likelihood that Rogers’s NGRI defense would have succeeded if counsel had performed effectively. View "Rogers v. Dzurenda" on Justia Law

In 1989, Stevens randomly shot at people on or near Interstate 580 in Oakland, leaving four people dead and six people injured. Stevens was sentenced to death.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of his petition for habeas relief, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2). The court rejected Stevens’ “Batson” claim concerning the prosecutor’s decision to use seven peremptory challenges to strike black prospective jurors. The California Supreme Court reasonably concluded that the prosecutor’s race-neutral justifications for striking prospective jurors were supported by the record. As required by Batson, the court considered the claims on a strike-by-strike basis, in light of “all of the relevant facts and circumstances.” The Ninth Circuit noted that in reviewing a state court’s decision and the trial court’s findings of fact, its role is limited to guarding against “extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems.” Finding no such malfunction the court declined to substitute its judgments for the factual credibility determinations made almost three decades ago by the state trial court. View "Stevens v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal without leave to amend of a complaint brought by plaintiffs, a group of elected local government officials, asserting a pre-enforcement challenge to California Government Code section 3550, which states in part that a public employer shall not deter or discourage public employees from becoming or remaining members of an employee organization.The panel concluded that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have suffered an injury in fact sufficient to establish their standing to pursue their preenforcement challenge. The panel explained that section 3550 does not regulate plaintiffs' individual speech, and any restrictions the statute does impose on plaintiffs' ability to speak on behalf of their employers do not injure plaintiffs' constitutionally protected individual interests. In this case, plaintiffs have not shown that they have a well-founded fear that PERB will impute these statements to plaintiffs' public employers, particularly in light of concessions made by PERB in this litigation.However, dismissals for lack of Article III jurisdiction must be entered without prejudice because a court that lacks jurisdiction is powerless to reach the merits. In this case, the district court erred by dismissing the case with prejudice. Accordingly, the panel remanded to the district court to enter judgment dismissing the case without prejudice. View "Barke v. Banks" on Justia Law

Schlenker pled guilty to second-degree murder, 18 U.S.C. 1111 and 1153(a), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, section 924(c)(1)(A). In his plea agreement, he waived his right to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence, except for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. After his sentencing, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the residual clause of section 924(c)(3), definition of a “crime of violence,” was unconstitutionally vague. The Ninth Circuit then held that second-degree murder is not a “crime of violence” under the elements clause of section 924(c)(3). Schlenker sought to challenge the validity of his section 924(c) sentence in a habeas proceeding but prosecutors responded that the government would consider the filing of such an action to be a breach of the plea agreement.Schlenker then filed a civil action seeking a declaration that filing a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion would not breach the plea agreement and to clarify the terms of the plea agreement. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his suit. The district court lacked jurisdiction because there was no “case or controversy” as required under Article III. Schlenker’s declaratory action and motion to clarify improperly sought to carve out a collateral legal issue—the validity and scope of the collateral attack waiver—from a potential section 2255 motion, and to use the Declaratory Judgment Act as a substitute to challenge his sentence. View "United States v. Schlenker" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Oakland’s Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance, which requires landlords re-taking occupancy of their homes upon the expiration of a lease to pay tenants a relocation payment. Plaintiffs alleged that the relocation fee is an unconstitutional physical taking of their money for a private rather than public purpose, without just compensation. Alternatively, they claimed that the fee constitutes an unconstitutional exaction of their Oakland home and an unconstitutional seizure of their money under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. Although in certain circumstances money can be the subject of a physical (per se) taking, the relocation fee required by the Ordinance was a regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship, not an unconstitutional taking of a specific and identifiable property interest. Because there was no taking, the court did not address whether the relocation fee was required for a public purpose or what just compensation would be. The court rejected an assertion that Oakland placed an unconstitutional condition (an exaction), on their preferred use of their Oakland home. The plaintiffs did not establish a cognizable theory of state action; Oakland did not participate in the monetary exchange between plaintiffs and their tenants. View "Ballinger v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law