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

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and capital sentence for first degree murder and rape of a fifteen year old girl. The Ninth Circuit applied the habeas standards in effect prior to the implementation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996; petitioner's numerous ineffective assistance of counsel claims, governed by Strickland v. Washington, were unavailing because he did not show that trial counsel's performance fell below an objective reasonableness standard at the time of the trial in 1987; petitioner failed to show prejudice in the few instances where counsel's performance was deficient; and petitioner's conflict of interest claim under Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 171 (2002), were unpersuasive.However, the panel held that the issue of juror misconduct must be remanded to the district court in light of the panel's recent decision in Godoy v. Spearman, 861 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The panel otherwise denied habeas relief and affirmed the district court's denial of evidentiary hearings for all claims. View "Clark v. Chappell" on Justia Law

Only a district judge may rule on a motion to withdraw consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(4). Plaintiff filed suit pro se in 2008, alleging civil rights violations by prison officials. Plaintiff consented to magistrate jurisdiction shortly after filing his action and defendants declined consent more than seven years later in 2015.The Ninth Circuit vacated the magistrate judge's denial of plaintiff's motion to withdraw consent to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction and remanded with instructions to the district judge to consider that motion de novo. If the district court finds that plaintiff should have been permitted to withdraw consent, the district judge is to vacate the judgment entered by the magistrate judge. The panel also vacated the screening orders entered by various magistrate judges that dismissed certain of plaintiff's claims and remanded for further proceedings on those claims. View "Branch v. Umphenour" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and filed this superseding opinion in its place.The panel affirmed the district court's order granting police officers' motion for summary judgment in an action brought by plaintiffs, alleging that the officers violated plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when the officers stole plaintiffs' property during the execution of a search and seizure pursuant to a warrant. The panel held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. View "Jessop v. City of Fresno" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his children filed suit against the County, the Agency, and others, alleging 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Monell claims stemming from a child welfare investigation undertaken by defendants that allegedly violated plaintiff and his children's First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the claims as insufficiently pleaded or barred by qualified immunity.The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff's first amended complaint (FAC) failed to plausibly allege Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Monell claims. However, the panel held that plaintiff pleaded a plausible First Amendment claim where he alleged that he engaged in protected activity, that the alleged retaliation would objectively have had a chilling effect and that retaliation was the but-for motive for the social worker's actions. Furthermore, the social worker was not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable official would know that taking the serious step of threatening to terminate a parent’s custody of his children, when the official would not have taken this step absent her retaliatory intent, violates the First Amendment. Therefore, defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Capp v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against various prison officials, alleging that they used excessive force after an incident where defendant was shot in the knee.The Ninth Circuit reversed and held that a party need not satisfy the good cause or extraordinary circumstances standard provided in 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(4) in order to withdraw magistrate judge consent before all parties have consented. In this case, the magistrate judge erroneously required such a showing by plaintiff and, under the circumstances, his motion to withdraw consent should have been granted. Therefore, the panel held that the magistrate judge did not have jurisdiction over trial proceedings under section 636(c). The panel also reversed the dismissal of Defendant Torres, holding that the 90-day window under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) was never triggered, and reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim. View "Gilmore v. Lockard" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for the United States in an action under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The Act prohibits any governmental authority from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or government agents that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The United States filed suit against defendants, alleging that defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the constitutional rights of residents who were not members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints .The panel held that the district court correctly interpreted the Act, 34 U.S.C. 12601, when it concluded that the statute does not require an official municipal policy of violating constitutional rights in order for the United States to prevail; defendants' arguments about the district court's factual findings, even if correct, did not entitle it to relief because the district court's judgment was supported on other grounds; and the district court did not err in admitting several statements that defendants challenged as hearsay. View "United States v. Town of Colorado City" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint alleging that the Department violated her right to due process when it listed her name, without notice, on the State's Child Protective Services Central Registry. In this case, plaintiff's name was listed on the Registry after her husband confessed to killing their newborn baby and the criminal investigation concluded that plaintiff was not a suspect.The panel held that, because plaintiff alleged only individualized claims for deprivation of procedural due process, the normal discovery rule of accrual applies. The panel agreed with the district court that plaintiff had knowledge of the injury giving rise to her claims by May 2013, but failed to file her action within the two year statute of limitations. Furthermore, the complaint would not have been saved by any amendment and thus the district court did not err in denying plaintiff leave to amend. View "Bird v. Hawai'i" on Justia Law

Where, as here, the record shows that the medically necessary treatment for a prisoner's gender dysphoria is gender confirmation surgery (GCS), and responsible prison officials deny such treatment with full awareness of the prisoner's suffering, those officials violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of a permanent injunction after the district court concluded that gender confirmation surgery is medically necessary for plaintiff, a male-to-female transgender prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction, and ordered the State to provide the surgery. The panel held that the record, as construed by the district court, established that plaintiff has a serious medical need, that the appropriate medical treatment is GCS, and that prison authorities have not provided that treatment despite full knowledge of plaintiff's ongoing and extreme suffering and medical needs. In so holding, the panel rejected the State's portrait of a reasoned disagreement between qualified medical professionals. The panel noted that its analysis was individual to plaintiff and was based on the record.The panel also noted that it applied the dictates of the Eighth Amendment in an area of increased social awareness: transgender health care, and that the Eighth Amendment inquiry takes into account the medical community's developing understanding of what treatments are safe and medically necessary to treat gender dysphoria. Finally, the panel largely rejected the State's remaining contentions, but vacated the injunction to the extent it applied to the named defendants in their individual capacities. View "Edmo v. Corizon, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the county's motion to dismiss a putative class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act based on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. The panel weighed the factors set out in Mitchell v. Los Angeles Community College District, 861 F.2d 198 (9th Cir. 1988), and held that the county was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because it is not an arm of the state when it administers the In-Home Supportive Services program.The panel also held that the Supreme Court has not overruled or undermined Mitchell in Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 513 U.S. 30 (1994). Furthermore, the effective date of the rule is January 1, 2015; this date is not impermissibly retroactive; and the DOL's decision not to enforce a new rule does not obviate private rights of action. Accordingly, the panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ray v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, appealed the revocation of his in forma pauperis (IFP) status based on his three prior strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The Ninth Circuit reversed and held that plaintiff's prior cases were not dismissed on grounds enumerated under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) and thus did not qualify as strikes.Applying the D.C. Circuit's decision in Fourstar v. Garden City Grp., Inc., 875 F.3d 1147, 1152 (D.C. Cir. 2017), the panel held that a dismissal based on a district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is not an enumerated ground under section 1915(g). The panel also held that dismissal due to a failure to serve is plainly not a dismissal on the ground that the suit was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. In one of defendant's cases, the district court held that plaintiff failed to state a claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. Another case was dismissed because plaintiff failed to serve a defendant and others enjoyed quasi-judicial immunity. View "Harris v. Harris" on Justia Law