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

Plaintiff sued defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendant violated plaintiff's First Amendment right to free speech by retaliating against him for supporting defendant's opponent in the 2006 Sheriff's election. At issue is whether plaintiff was a "policymaker" under Branti v. Finkel or at the very least, defendant was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions. The court held that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions retaliating against plaintiff while plaintiff was a Reserve Division Commander because plaintiff was a policymaker in that position. The court also held that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity for any further retaliatory action against plaintiff once plaintiff was transferred to Court Operations because plaintiff was not a policymaker at Court Operations under clearly established law.

Plaintiff sued defendant alleging that defendant's 1979 mobile home rent control ordinance and its implementation guidelines adopted by a 2006 amendment violated plaintiff's constitutional rights where the ordinance and its guidelines deprived mobile home park owners of the value of their property and transferred it to park residents who are able to sell their mobile homes at a premium because they are located on rent-controlled spaces. At issue was whether plaintiff's facial takings claim was properly dismissed for being time-barred and plaintiff's takings claim properly dismissed for being unripe. Also at issue was whether plaintiff's due process claim was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court held that plaintiff's facial takings claim was properly time-barred where plaintiff did not timely file its claim and where the 2006 amendment cannot be reasonably read as a substantive amendment to the 1979 ordinance that altered its effect on mobile home park owners. The court held that plaintiff's takings claim was properly dismissed where plaintiff failed to seek relief via writ of mandate and a Kavanau adjustment. The court held that plaintiff's due process claim was properly dismissed where the factual allegations in the Complaint do not provide a sufficient basis for a claim that defendant's actions were arbitrary, irrational, or lacking any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate government interest.

Plaintiff, through his guardian, sued defendant, Garden Grove Unified School District ("District"), for reimbursement of the full costs of sending plaintiff to a non-public program when the District failed to provide a free appropriate public education to plaintiff. At issue was whether plaintiff was entitled to full reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("Act")where the non-public program did not meet all of plaintiff's educational needs. The court held that plaintiff was properly awarded full reimbursement where the Act did not require that a private school placement provide all services that a disabled student needs in order to permit full reimbursement.

Defendant moved to suppress the evidence discovered on his laptop and any "fruits" of that evidence when the laptop was confiscated at the United States-Mexico border. At issue was whether the search of a laptop that began at the border and ended two days later in a government forensic computer laboratory almost 170 miles away could still fall within the border search doctrine. The court held that the initial search and seizure of the laptop was justified by the government's broad sovereign authority to secure the country's borders and there was no basis to distinguish this case from prior jurisprudence simply because the complexity of defendant's computer necessitated its relocation to a forensic computer laboratory to allow the government to conduct an adequate search. The court also held that the duration of the deprivation satisfied the common-sense standards established in Montoya de Hernandez and that continuing the search by transporting the property did not amount to an unreasonable constitutional deprivation.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Arizona Department of Corrections ("ADC") and the State of Arizona alleging that the ADC's intended use of imported, non-Food Drug Administration approved sodium thipental in plaintiff's execution violated his Eighth Amendment rights. At issue was whether plaintiff's complaint, which only differed by four new factual allegations to a similar complaint plaintiff had previously filed, was insufficient to state a facially plausible claim. The court held that plaintiff failed to state a facially plausible claim that Arizona's planned execution was "sure or very likely to cause...needless suffering" where plaintiff's new allegations did not support the drawing of any non-speculative conclusions.