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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order modifying a preliminary injunction, which enjoins the Government from enforcing Executive Order 13780 against (1) grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States; and (2) refugees who have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) through the Lautenberg Amendment. The panel held that, in modifying the preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo, the district court carefully and correctly balanced the hardships and the equitable considerations as directed by the Supreme Court in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2088 (2017), and did not abuse its discretion. The district court did not err in rejecting the Government's restricted reading of the Supreme Court's June 26, 2017 stay ruling and in modifying the injunction to prohibit enforcement of the Executive Order against grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States. The panel affirmed the district court's holding that formally assured refugees have bona fide relationships with resettlement agencies and are covered by the injunction because the assurance is formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course rather than to evade the Executive Order. The panel explained that it considered the individualized screening process necessary to obtain a formal assurance and the concrete harms faced by a resettlement agency because of that refugee's exclusion. View "Hawaii v. Trump" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for plaintiff in an action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law alleging that a police officer used excessive force when she shot plaintiff. Plaintiff was shot in the back during the officer's response to a 911 call and plaintiff was rendered a paraplegic. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the officer's motion for a new trial, because the evidence presented at trial provided a reasonable basis to support the jury's verdict; the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to give to the jury special interrogatories, a deadly force instruction, or an instruction regarding officer tactics; the district court has broad discretion in the formulation of jury instructions, and the instructions adequately covered the issues presented, correctly stated the law, and were not misleading; and the panel did not reach the officer's argument relating to qualified immunity because she failed to preserve the defense for appeal. View "Lam v. City of San Jose" on Justia Law

Petitioner claimed that he was categorically exempt from the death penalty because he was intellectually disabled pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). The Nevada Supreme Court rejected petitioner's claim of intellectual disability on the merits. The district court then deferred to its determination under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254. The Ninth Circuit did not decide whether petitioner was intellectually disabled, nor whether the Nevada Supreme Court made a reasonable or an unreasonable determination of fact when it concluded that he is not. Instead, panel decided only that the district court erred in its analysis under AEDPA, and thus the panel remanded for reconsideration in light of Bromfield v. Cain, 135 S. Ct. 2269 (2015), and in light of a doctor's report concluding that petitioner was intellectually disabled. The panel affirmed the district court's order holding that petitioner's Hurst-based Rule 60(b) motion was disguised as an unauthorized second or successive habeas petition. Finally, the panel held that Hurst did not apply retroactively and thus denied petitioner's application for leave to file a second or successive habeas petition. View "Ybarra v. Filson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who has been deaf since birth and uses American Sign Language (ASL) as his primary language, filed suit against the State and County, alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101–12213, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. 701–796I, negligence, and false arrest. Plaintiff alleged that defendants did not provide him with an ASL interpreter at his arraignment on criminal charges, and that the County did not provide him with an ASL interpreter and other auxiliary aids in order for plaintiff to effectively communicate while he was in pretrial detainment and under pretrial supervision. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the State; affirmed the district court's conclusion that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue his claims for injunctive relief; reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the County on plaintiff's ADA and Section 504 claims for compensatory damages; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Updike v. Multnomah County" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal on summary judgment of plaintiff's action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted summary judgment based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as a "prisoner" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). The panel held, however, that a plaintiff, like the one here, who was in custody at the time he initiated his suit but was free when he filed his amended operative complaint was not a "prisoner" subject to a PLRA exhaustion defense. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Fong" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights when a deputy used a leg sweep maneuver after plaintiff refused to drop water balloons he was carrying. The Ninth Circuit reversed the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and vacated the damages award. The panel held that, although the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict, the deputy was entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time the incident occurred, the law was not clearly established that an officer cannot progressively increase his use of force from verbal commands, to an arm grab, and then a leg sweep maneuver when a misdemeanant refuses to comply with the officer's orders and resists, obstructs, or delays the officer in his lawful performance of duties such that the officer has probable cause to arrest him in a challenging environment. View "Shafer v. County of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of an action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a former inmate was psychologically traumatized as a result of being compelled to undergo sexual shame therapy at a Hawaii correctional facility. The panel applied Simmons v. United States, 805 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1986), and held that the district court erred in denying as futile plaintiff's request for leave to amend to include new assertions where she may be able to allege that she was unaware of her injuries until sometime after she stopped participating in the therapy sessions, and she may have reasonably viewed the embarrassment and humiliation she felt as the ordinary, and hence not harmful, response to therapy. View "Gregg v. Hawaii DPS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against BNSF, alleging that the company terminated him in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov. Code 12940 et seq. The Ninth Circuit applied the McDonnell Douglas test and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to BNSF, holding that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on his obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) where no evidence established that plaintiff's OSA was a substantial motivating reason for BNSF's decision to terminate him. Even if plaintiff had made a prima facie case of discrimination, plaintiff failed to offer evidence that BNSF's stated reason -- recurrent absenteeism -- was either false or pretextual. Therefore, BNSF did not engage in unlawful discrimination by declining to alter plaintiff's disciplinary outcome based on his OSA diagnosis. Finally, the panel rejected plaintiff's claim that BNSF failed to provide a reasonable accommodation and interactive process claims. View "Alamillo v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying a high school coach's motion for a preliminary injunction that would require the District to allow him to kneel and pray on the fifty-yard line in view of students and parents immediately after football games. The panel held that the coach spoke as a public employee, not as a private citizen, and therefore declined to reach whether the district justifiably restricted his speech to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. The coach could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his First Amendment retaliation claim, and was not entitled to the preliminary injunction he sought. By kneeling and praying on the fifty-yard line immediately after games, the coach was fulfilling his professional responsibility to communicate demonstratively to students and spectators, and he took advantage of his position to press his particular views upon the impressionable and captive minds before him. View "Kennedy v. Bremerton School District" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging defendant, an off-duty police officer working as security for a private event, violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to intercede and stop an assault. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity and on the merits. The panel held that defendant may not assert qualified immunity because he was not serving a public, governmental function while being paid by the hotel to provide private security. On the merits, the panel held that a reasonable jury could find that defendant exposed plaintiff to harm he would not otherwise have faced, that this harm was foreseeable, and that defendant acted with deliberate indifference in the presence of the known danger created by his conduct. View "Bracken v. Chung" on Justia Law