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

Petitioner entered the United States without inspection and was immediately detained by Officers from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Two days later, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1225, DHS issued an expedited removal order against him. Petitioner asserted a fear of persecution, an asylum officer conducted a credible fear interview and concluded that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground.   The Ninth Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s s petition for review from a decision of an immigration judge affirming an asylum officer’s negative credible fear determination in expedited removal proceedings. The court held that because Congress has clearly and unambiguously precluded the court from asserting jurisdiction over the merits of individual expedited removal orders, even with regard to constitutional challenges to such orders, and because that prohibition on jurisdiction raises no constitutional difficulty, the court lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner’s petition for review. View "HEVER MENDOZA LINARES V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that tire chalking violated the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for Defendants and held that municipalities are not required to obtain warrants before chalking tires as part of enforcing time limits on city parking spots. The panel held that even assuming the temporary dusting of chalk on a tire constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search,” it falls within the administrative search exception to the warrant requirement. Complementing a broader program of traffic control, tire chalking is reasonable in its scope and manner of execution. It is not used for general crime control purposes. And its intrusion on personal liberty is de minimis at most. View "ANDRE VERDUN, ET AL V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition brought by Petitioner, who was sentenced to death in 1994 after a state jury convicted him of first-degree murder and other offenses. In the opinion, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Petitioner's certified claim that the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).   Petitioner argued the California Supreme Court’s decision was an unreasonable application of Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005), under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(d)(1) because the state court “engaged in the prohibited exercise of reviewing the trial court record regarding the struck jurors and identifying colorable reasons why the prosecutor might have legitimately struck the three jurors.”   The panel held that the California Supreme Court unreasonably applied Johnson by doing exactly what this court has explained Johnson forbids: the court scanned the record, articulated its own race-neutral reasons why the prosecutor may have exercised his peremptory strikes, and denied Petitioner’s claim at Step One. The panel addressed Petitioner’s six other certified claims in a simultaneously filed memorandum disposition and affirmed the district court’s rulings on those claims. The panel declined to reach Petitioner’s uncertified claims. View "JAIME HOYOS V. RONALD DAVIS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc et seq., the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and Arizona state law. He claimed he is unable to pray five times a day, as the Qur’an requires because he is housed with people who harass him as he prays; and who had asked the prison to accommodate his religious practice by housing him exclusively with other prisoners based on their religious beliefs and practices.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on the pleadings. The panel held that Al Saud’s RLUIPA claim failed because denying his request to be housed only with Muslims was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. The panel concluded that the outcome of this case was largely controlled by Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015), which held that a prison could deny a prisoner’s religious accommodation when he sought to be housed with only white people.   The panel held that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's First Amendment free exercise rights because denying Plaintiff’s request was also reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest—avoiding the potential legal liability of housing inmates based on their religious beliefs and practice. Denying the request was rationally related to avoiding liability because by denying Plaintiff’s requested accommodation, the Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry completely eliminated its risk of litigation from other prisoners based on that claim. View "SHAYKH MUHAMMAD AL SAUD V. PANNAN DAYS, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit amended its Opinion filed April 27, 2022, affirming a conviction and sentence on one count of attempted sexual exploitation of a child, and one count of possession of sexually explicit images of children, in a case in which Defendant was arrested returning from the Philippines where he engaged in sex tourism involving minors.   Defendant argued that the evidence seized from his electrical devices upon his arrest should have been suppressed because Yahoo and Facebook were acting as government agents when they searched his online accounts. The panel rejected Defendant’s arguments (1) that two federal statutes—the Stored Communications Act and the Protect Our Children Act—transformed the ESPs’ searches into governmental action, and (2) that the government was sufficiently involved in the ESPs’ searches of Defendant’s accounts to trigger Fourth Amendment protection.   The panel declined to reach the question of whether the preservation requests implicate the Fourth Amendment because even assuming that they do, there is no basis for suppression given that the record establishes that the ESPs’ preservation of the defendant’s digital data had no effect on the government’s ability to obtain the evidence that convicted him.   The panel concluded that the affidavit—which described Yahoo’s internal investigation and the resulting findings, as well as the information Facebook provided to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children after searching the defendant’s accounts—established a fair probability that child pornography would be found on the defendant’s electronic devices. The panel wrote that there was no impermissible double counting here, as the enhancements were premised on separate exploitative acts. View "USA V. CARSTEN ROSENOW" on Justia Law

The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation have a cross-deputization agreement with the State of Montana under which the Tribes have agreed to commission state police to act as tribal police where there is a gap between their respective criminal jurisdictions. Defendant challenges the validity of the cross-deputization agreement, arguing that the Tribes lack the inherent sovereign authority to enter into a cross-deputization agreement with the State of Montana.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. The panel emphasized that the cross-deputization agreement deputizes state officers to enforce tribal law, not state law, and emphasized that Congress has expressly provided for the Tribes’ authority to enter into such compacts.   Defendant also argued that the Tribes explicitly conditioned the cross-deputization agreement on federal approval, which they did not receive. The panel did not read the agreement’s use of the word “approve” as giving the Bureau of Indian Affairs veto power over the agreement.   The panel wrote that even if the lack of a signature from the BIA representative on the 2003 amendment to the agreement impaired the validity of the amendment, it would not invalidate the trooper’s commissioned status. The panel wrote that the trooper’s failure to carry an identification card was plainly a violation of the agreement.  The panel noted, however, that none of the sovereign parties to the agreement appears to consider the violation sufficiently serious to seek any remedy for it. View "USA V. ERIC FOWLER" on Justia Law

Defendant argued that she should be able to withdraw her guilty plea at the sentencing hearing because the district court “rejected” the non-binding sentencing recommendation under Rule 11(c)(1)(B). She asserted that the district court erred by not allowing her to withdraw her guilty plea because it supposedly treated her plea agreement as a binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C).   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the criminal judgment. Reviewing for plain error, the panel held that Defendant had no right to withdraw her plea. Explaining that the district court’s use of “reject” in the context of Rule 11(c)(1)(B) plea agreement has no legal effect, the panel wrote that the “rejection” of a recommended sentence under a Rule 11(c)(1)(B) agreement could logically mean only that the court rejected the recommendation itself, and the district court thus did not plainly err in not providing Defendant an opportunity to withdraw her plea. The panel wrote that Defendant was permitted to withdraw her guilty plea before sentencing only if she could show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal and that she has not done so. The panel held that Defendant’s remaining arguments fail. The magistrate judge’s failure to specifically mention a “jury” trial during the plea colloquy, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(C), did not affect Defendant’s substantial rights. The district court properly considered and explained its reasons for rejecting Defendant’s variance requests. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 100-month sentence. View "USA V. CYNTHIA MONTOYA" on Justia Law

A Social Security Administration ALJ, appointed by agency staff rather than by the Commissioner as required, reviewed and denied claimant’s initial claims. Without challenging the ALJ’s appointment, the claimant appealed to the district court and prevailed in part. The district court vacated the 2017 ALJ decision and ordered a new hearing because the ALJ failed to properly consider certain evidence. The case returned to the same ALJ, who by then had been properly ratified by the Acting Commissioner. The ALJ again denied benefits, and claimant appealed to the district court, raising the issue of an Appointments Clause violation. The district court affirmed the ALJ decision and denied the Appointments Clause claim because the 2017 decision had been vacated and the ALJ was properly appointed when she issued the 2019 decision.   Because the ALJ’s decision was tainted by a prior Appointments Clause violation, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of claimant’s application for benefits under the Social Security Act and remanded with instructions to the Commissioner to assign the case to a different, validly appointed ALJ to rehear and adjudicate claimant’s case de novo. The panel held that under Lucia, the claimant was entitled to a new hearing before a different ALJ. The panel concluded that claimants are entitled to an independent decision issued by a different ALJ if a timely challenged ALJ decision is tainted by a pre-ratification ALJ decision. View "BRIAN CODY V. KILOLO KIJAKAZI" on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked as a licensed marriage and family therapist for more than twenty years and his Christian views inform his work. Plaintiff sued state officials (“Washington”) in May 2021, seeking to enjoin SB 5722. Equal Rights Washington (“ERW”), the lead organization supporting SB 5722’s passage, intervened as a defendant. Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction, which Washington and ERW both opposed, and Defendants filed motions to dismiss his complaint.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s lawsuit. The panel held that Plaintiff had standing to bring his claims in an individual capacity and the claims were prudentially ripe. Plaintiff’s complaint showed a plan or desire to violate Washington’s law; Washington confirmed that it will enforce the ban on conversion therapy “as it enforces other restrictions on unprofessional conduct;” and Plaintiff alleged that the law had chilled his speech and that he has self-censored himself out of fear of enforcement. Plaintiff did not, however, have standing to bring claims on behalf of his minor clients.   Further, the panel held that Washington’s licensing scheme for health care providers did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. The panel held that the law was a neutral law targeted at preventing the harms associated with conversion therapy, and not at the religious exercise of those who wish to practice this type of therapy on minors. Finally, Washington’s law was not unconstitutionally vague. The law gave fair notice of what conduct was proscribed to a reasonable person and contained standards limiting the discretion of those who will enforce it. View "BRIAN TINGLEY V. ROBERT FERGUSON, ET AL" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of 25 felonies (mostly residential burglaries) committed against multiple victims over a three-month period. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences on all but two of the 25 counts, resulting in an overall sentence of 292 years imprisonment.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Rejecting Petitioner’s constitutional claim, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that proportionality should be assessed based on each individual conviction and sentence, not the cumulative effect of consecutive sentences and that none of Petitioner’s individual sentences were disproportionate. Petitioner argued that the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA’s) deferential standard of review does not apply to the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision because that court did not consider the cumulative impact of his sentence and that he was entitled instead to de novo review on this claim. The panel concluded that the Arizona Court of Appeals made a merits determination and that AEDPA deference applies.   Applying AEDPA deference, the panel noted that there is no clearly established law from the Supreme Court on whether Eighth Amendment sentence proportionality must be analyzed on a cumulative or individual basis when a defendant is sentenced on multiple offenses, and that other than the basic principle of proportionality, the only thing that the Supreme Court has established is that the rule against grossly disproportionate sentences is violated only in the exceedingly rare and extreme case. The panel concluded that it cannot say that the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision was contrary to, or unreasonably applied, clearly established federal law. View "ATDOM PATSALIS V. DAVID SHINN, ET AL" on Justia Law