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

Fried worked as a manicurist, 2005-2017. Fried complained about female manicurists receiving most of the appointments and that other male manicurists also complained. In 2017, Fried became frustrated and threw a pencil at a computer because customers were requesting female manicurists more often than male manicurists. His manager disciplined him and commented that he might want to find other work. He alleges that his coworkers and customers made harassing comments and that he was told to finish a pedicure for a male customer who had solicited him for sex. Fried filed suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, alleging sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile environment.The Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment against Fried. A reasonable factfinder could decide that Fried’s employer created a hostile work environment. An employer can create a hostile work environment by failing to take immediate and corrective action in response to a coworker’s or third party’s sexual harassment or racial discrimination that the employer knew or should have known about. While comments made by a manager and coworkers on two occasions were insufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim, an employer’s response to unwelcome sexual advances toward an employee can independently create a hostile work environment. Fried’s manager failed to take immediate corrective action and also directed Fried to return to the customer and complete his pedicure. The district court should reconsider the cumulative effect of the coworkers’ comments. View "Fried v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2017, Langley pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to time served and 10 years of supervised release. As required by 18 U.S.C. 3583(d), the conditions of Langley’s supervised release included that he “not commit [a] federal, state or local crime,” “not illegally possess a controlled substance,” and “refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.” In 2017, Langley unsuccessfully sought amendment of the conditions of supervised release to permit him to use medical marijuana as allowed by California state law, to alleviate pain stemming from the amputation of his lower leg. Langley renewed the motion in 2020. Langley, who submitted a physician's opinion that marijuana was the best medical solution for his pain issues, argued that he has a fundamental Due Process Clause right to use medical marijuana.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Langley’s renewed motion. The court held that it is bound by precedent that rejected the identical substantive due process claim. Even if state laws decriminalizing marijuana could constitute additional evidence under the test for determining whether a right is protected by the Due Process Clause, the court concluded that it is bound by its 2007 decision until it is overturned by a higher authority. View "United States v. Langley." on Justia Law

Officers stopped a Cadillac with an expired registration. Jenkins, a passenger, showed no signs of distress. When the officers discovered that Jenkins was subject to an arrest warrant, they handcuffed her and put her in a cruiser, where Jenkins vomited. Officers called for paramedics and asked Jenkins if she was detoxing. Jenkins responded: “No … I’m pregnant.” The call for paramedics was then canceled. During transport, Jenkins groaned and screamed for help. After fingerprinting Jenkins at the police station, officers returned her to the cruiser. Several minutes later they found her unconscious, called for paramedics, and began CPR. Jenkins fell into a coma and died nine days later.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit. The district court validly exercised its discretion in choosing to review a bodycam video that was incorporated by reference into the amended complaint and did not assign the video too much weight. The complaint did not plausibly allege that any city policy or custom “was the moving force” behind the alleged constitutional violations but suggested that that the moving force was the officers’ failure to heed their training. The complaint failed to establish either objective unreasonableness or objective deliberate indifference by individual officers. The alleged violative nature of their conduct, in failing to recognize and respond to Jenkins’ serious medical need, was not clearly established in the specific context of this case, so the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. View "J. J. v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

In 2002, Munoz digitally penetrated his daughter. He later pleaded guilty to attempted lewdness with a child under the age of 14, acknowledging that “the Court will include as part of [his] sentence . . . lifetime supervision.” A Nevada state court sentenced Munoz to 48–144 months’ imprisonment, required him to register as a sex offender, and imposed a special sentence of lifetime supervision. Munoz filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging the lifetime supervision under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The lifetime supervision consists of a $30 monthly fee to defray the costs of his supervision; electronic monitoring; and a requirement that Munoz may reside only at a residence approved by his parole officer, and that he keep his parole officer informed of his current address.The Ninth Circuit vacated the denial of the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The conditions, individually and collectively, do not severely and immediately restrain Munoz’s physical liberty, so Munoz is not challenging his “custody,” and his claims are not cognizable in federal habeas. On remand, the district court may determine whether to allow Munoz to file an amended habeas petition that could secure jurisdiction or consider whether it would be appropriate to construe Munoz’s habeas petition to plead a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. View "Mounoz v. Smith" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison, asserted that he was physically and sexually assaulted in March 2016 and filed a grievance in March 2016, which prison officials failed to process. He submitted a second grievance in May 2016 concerning subsequent events, but referring to the March assaults. The district court reasoned that because the March assaults were mentioned in the May grievance which was pending when the plaintiff filed his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, an avenue of administrative relief remained open and the plaintiff could not be excused from exhausting the March grievance.The Ninth Circuit reversed, in part, the dismissal of the suit. The prison’s failure to respond to the March grievance rendered the administrative appeals process “unavailable” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e. Where inmates take reasonably appropriate steps to exhaust but are precluded from doing so by a prison’s erroneous failure to process the grievance, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. A later-filed grievance that alleges new complaints but refers to a previous, already exhausted grievance for context does not render the first grievance unexhausted. Because the May grievance was still pending when the complaint was filed, the district court properly deemed that grievance unexhausted. View "Fordley v. Lizarraga" on Justia Law

A Montana political party shall hold a primary to nominate its candidates if, for any statewide office in one of the last two elections, it received votes totaling five percent or more of the total votes for the last successful gubernatorial candidate. A party may also qualify for a primary if it submits a petition, signed by a number of registered voters equal to five percent or more of the total votes cast for the successful candidate for governor at the last general election or 5,000 electors, whichever is less. The number must include the registered voters in at least one-third of Montana's 100 legislative districts equal to five percent or more of the total votes cast for the successful candidate for governor at the last general election in those districts or 150 electors in those districts, whichever is less.The Ninth Circuit first held that recent amendments that did not fundamentally change the law did not render the appeal moot. The court rejected First and Fourteenth Amendment claims of right of association and right to cast an effective vote; the plaintiffs had not shown that the burden imposed by Montana’s law was severe. The filing deadline and the geographic distribution requirement similarly imposed relatively minor burdens. The law served the interest of ensuring that only nonfrivolous parties appear on the ballot.The court held that the part of the distribution requirement indexed to five percent of the votes for the previous gubernatorial winner in each district violated the Equal Protection Clause “one person, one vote” principle, arbitrarily diluting the value of voters' signatures in districts with a large number of supporters of the most recent gubernatorial winner. The resulting variation from district to district was significant. View "Montana Green Party v. Jacobsen" on Justia Law

Detained, separated from his family, speaking no English, and having diligently pursued representation, asylum applicant Usubakunov finally connected with a pro bono attorney at Catholic Charities who agreed to represent him. When that attorney was unavailable on the date of his merits hearing, Usubakunov requested his first continuance of that hearing. The IJ denied a continuance, leaving Usubakunov unassisted.The Ninth Circuit remanded. Under these circumstances, the IJ’s refusal to grant a continuance of Usubakunov’s merits hearing deprived him of his right to counsel and was an abuse of discretion because it was tantamount to a denial of counsel. The immigrant illustrated diligence, not bad faith, coupled with very difficult barriers. This was not a case of indefinite continuances, nor was it a case where Usubakunov was trying to game the system. View "Usubakunov v. Garland" on Justia Law

Ochoa was convicted in a 1988 trial for violent crimes against three female victims, including murder, kidnapping, forcible rape, and assault with a deadly weapon. The California state court imposed the death penalty.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of his habeas petition, first rejecting Ochoa’s “Brady” claim the prosecutor failed to disclose that jailhouse informants told officers that Ramage had implicated himself in the murder. Ochoa argued ineffective assistance during the penalty phase for failure to further investigate the conditions in which Ochoa lived as a child and his family’s history of mental health issues and violence. The court rejected a separate Eighth Amendment argument based on that failure to present additional mitigation evidence.Rejecting “cruel and unusual punishment arguments,” the court stated that no clearly established federal law required the court to instruct the jury as to family sympathy; nothing precluded the jury from considering family sympathy evidence, and the court did not prohibit Ochoa from arguing family sympathy. Precedent barring the admission of a defendant’s suppression hearing testimony as evidence at trial on the issue of guilt does not dictate that suppression hearing statements cannot be considered in proceedings outside the guilt phase or for purposes other than establishing substantive guilt. The court declined to expand the certificate of appealability to include the fact that the penalty phase jury instructions failed to direct the jury that it was required to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that aggravating circumstances existed and outweighed the mitigating circumstances. View "Ochoa v. Davis" on Justia Law

McGill was sentenced to death in 2004 for the murder of his former housemate, Perez. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed McGill’s conviction and sentence and the state trial court denied post-conviction relief.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief, rejecting McGill’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase. The post-conviction review court correctly identified and reasonably applied clearly established law in assessing professional norms and evaluating new mitigation evidence, did not apply an unconstitutional causal-nexus test, and did not need to consider the cumulative effect of nonexistent errors. Counsel’s preparation, investigation, and presentation of mitigation evidence was thorough and reasoned. The defense team uncovered a “not insignificant” amount of mitigation evidence that spanned decades of McGill’s life and presented a comprehensive picture to the jury. There is no evidence that counsel failed to uncover any reasonably available mitigation records. The court also rejected McGill’s uncertified claims that counsel was ineffective at the guilt phase by failing to retain an expert arson investigator and that his death sentence violated the Ex Post Facto Clause in light of Ring v. Arizona, in which the Supreme Court invalidated an Arizona statute that required the sentencing judge—not the jury—“to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty.” View "McGill v. Shinn" on Justia Law

Miranda got into an argument with his son, Matthew who was driving Miranda’s truck. Matthew stopped the truck in traffic near the family’s home. Neighbors called 911. Officers found Miranda in the driver’s seat. At the police station, Miranda admitted to having consumed six beers. He submitted to a portable breath test, which revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.137%. Officers read him a standardized “implied consent affidavit.” Miranda responded three times, “No, I will not," and was told: “If you do not expressly agree to testing ... your Arizona driving privileges will be suspended for 12 months. Officers prepared a search warrant for Miranda’s blood draw. Miranda then stated that he would do a blood draw, but the officers obtained a warrant and told Miranda, “your license is suspended.” The test revealed a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit. Miranda pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and failure to comply with law enforcement in exchange for dismissal of the DUI.The Ninth Circuit the summary judgment rejection of Miranda’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit alleging that an officer lied during the driver’s license suspension proceeding. There is no constitutional guarantee or federal right to a driver’s license so that its deprivation does not violate substantive due process. Even assuming the officer testified falsely at the administrative hearing as to whether Miranda consented to a blood test, Arizona provided sufficient post-deprivation due process. Miranda was granted a second administrative hearing before a new ALJ, who voided the suspension. Additionally, he was pursuing a state law claim in Arizona state court. View "Miranda v. City of Casa Grande" on Justia Law