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

Petitioner appealed the denial of his habeas petition, contending that the California state trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it imposed an upper term sentence based in part on its conclusion that he was on parole for a violent offense at the time of the crime. The court affirmed the district court's holding that petitioner suffered an error pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey but that any such error was harmless.

These consolidated appeals arose from claims that major telecommunications carriers assisted the government with intelligence gathering following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Plaintiffs challenged the legality of the telecommunications companies' participation in the surveillance program. At issue was the constitutionality of section 802 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1885a, which allowed for immunity for the telecommunications companies. The court concluded that the statute was constitutional and did not violate Articles I and III of the Constitution or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, the district court's grant of the government's motion to dismiss was affirmed as to the challenged section 802 claims.

This case involved A.S., a California minor, who was eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. At issue was which California agency was responsible for funding A.S.'s educational placement in an out-of-state residential treatment facility. The court held as a matter of California law that the California agency responsible for funding A.S.'s education at an out-of-state residential treatment facility was the school district in which the student's parent, as defined by California Education Code section 56028, resided. The court held that A.S. had no parent under the 2005 version of section 56028 and thus, from July 28, 2006, when A.S. was placed at the out-of-state facility, until October 9, 2007, when an amended version of section 56028 took effect, California law did not designate any educational agency as responsible for A.S.'s education. The California Department of Education (CDE) was therefore responsible by default. The court held that A.S. did have a parent under the 2007 and 2009 versions of section 56028. CDE therefore was not responsible for A.S.'s out-of-state education after October 10, 2007, when the 2007 version of section 56028 took effect. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment.

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. The court held that because the delay in presenting defendant to a magistrate was unreasonable, his statements made more than six hours after his arrest must be suppressed under the rule announced in both McNabb v. United States and Mallory v. United States. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of defendant's suppression motion, vacated the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. The court did not address defendant's remaining challenges to his conviction.

Defendant appealed from his conviction for maintaining his residence for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using methamphetamine. Defendant contended that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain inculpatory statements he made to DEA officials. Because the government did not bear its burden of showing that these statements were not the product of government officials' concededly illegal searches of defendant's home and garage, the court reversed his conviction. The court also concluded that, although the evidence was sparse, it was sufficient to allow a jury to infer that one of the primary or principal uses to which defendant devoted his property was the manufacture, distribution, or use of methamphetamine. Therefore, the court held that defendant was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on the ground of insufficient evidence. The court also rejected defendant's void for vagueness argument.

Plaintiff, a minor who had been diagnosed with autism, appealed the district court's affirmance of the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE) hearing officer's decision that plaintiff's free and appropriate public education placement complied with the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. Plaintiff also claimed that his tuition reimbursement request for the 2007-2008 school year was timely, and that Loveland Academy was his "stay put" placement. The court held that Loveland Acadamy was not plaintiff's stay put placement because the DOE only agreed to pay tuition for the limited 2006-2007 school year and never affirmatively agreed to place plaintiff at Loveland Academy. The court also concluded that plaintiff's tuition reimbursement claim for the 2007-2008 school year was time-barred and that the district court did not err in finding that the 2007 and 2008 individualized education programs complied with IDEA requirements. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the district court.

Plaintiff sued defendant, a general improvement district, arguing that defendant's policy of only allowing people who own or rent real property within defendant's 1968 boundaries to access beaches that it owned and operated was unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court held that the beaches were not a traditional public forum, and that plaintiff's exclusion from beaches did not violate either his First Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Petitioner was convicted of murder and other aggravated enhancements. This case reached the court on a certificate of appealability granted by the district court on the issue of whether the state court of appeal acted contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States when it held that the supplemental jury charge given at petitioner's trial was not coercive. The court affirmed the denial of the writ of habeas corpus because the state court of appeal's decision met the federal review standards set forth under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254(d).

The Church appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment on its claim that the County enforced a land use regulation in violation of the Church's constitutional and statutory rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc. The court agreed with the district court that the Church failed to establish that its RLUIPA claims were ripe absent a final determination from the County on its Use Permit application and held that the Church failed to make a sufficient showing of the ripeness of any of its constitutional claims. Accordingly, the district court's judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiffs contended that Barack Obama was constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States. In addition to plaintiffs' constitutional claims, as well as their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their quo warranto claims for improper venue; their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., claims for failure to state a claim; and their Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., claims against defendants First Lady Michelle Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, for failure to state a claim. The court adopted the district court's classification of the parties and held that each plaintiff lacked standing; the proper venue for plaintiffs' quo warranto claims was in the District of Columbia, pursuant to D.C. Code 16-3503; FOIA did not apply to any of defendants because they were all individuals, not agencies; and plaintiffs had six months between the original complaint and the amended complaint to attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations and their failure to do so was inexcusable. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' constitutional claims for lack of Article III standing and the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' quo warranto, FOIA, or RICO claims. The dismissal of the district court was affirmed and the emergency petition for writ of mandamus was denied.