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

In appeal No. 13-99003, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Central District and denied petitioner's motion to expand the certificate of appealability (COA) as to all claims except claim 6, regarding ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase. The panel held that the conclusion that an irreconcilable conflict did not exist based on the disagreement between petitioner and counsel was reasonable; even if petitioner were successfully able to demonstrate a complete breakdown in communication or prove that an irreconcilable conflict existed under the Moore factors, his irreconcilable-conflict claim would still fail, because the Supreme Court has never held that an irreconcilable conflict with one's attorney constitutes a per se denial of the right to effective counsel; and thus the state court's decision did not unreasonably apply clearly established Federal law as pronounced by the Supreme Court. The panel also held that the state court reasonably determined that counsel did not perform deficiently by refusing to let petitioner testify, and even if counsel was deficient in doing so, petitioner was not prejudiced.In appeal No. 13-99007, the panel affirmed the judgment of the Southern District and denied petitioner's motion to expand the COA. The panel held that petitioner was not deprived of constitutionally adequate representation during the penalty phase and petitioner was not deprived of his right to the competent assistance of a psychiatric expert. View "Carter v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a claim for monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 brought by public sector employees against their union after the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018). Janus held that the compulsory collection of agency fees by unions violates the First Amendment.The panel joined the Seventh Circuit and held that private parties may invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983, where they acted in direct reliance on then-binding Supreme Court precedent and presumptively-valid state law. The panel also held that the good faith affirmative defense applies as a matter of law, and the district court was right to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for monetary relief. View "Danielson v. Inslee" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to a police officer in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law claims that the officer used excessive force. The officer placed defendant in a chokehold during an encounter following a concert, and the chokehold rendered plaintiff unconscious.The panel held that its decision in Barnard v. Theobald, 721 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2013), squarely addressed the constitutionality of the use of a chokehold on a non-resisting person. Barnard held that any reasonable person should have known that squeezing the breath from a compliant, prone, and handcuffed individual despite his pleas for air involves a degree of force that is greater than reasonable. In this case, plaintiff was not resisting arrest when the officer placed him in a chokehold, and there was little chance he could initiate resistance with five other officers fully restraining him and pinning him to the ground. Therefore, it was clearly established that the use of a chokehold on a non-resisting, restrained person violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on the use of excessive force. Furthermore, the same version of the facts precluded summary judgment on the state law claims. View "Tuuamalemalo v. Greene" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law claims arising from Defendant Stringer's fatal shooting of plaintiff's son, Michael Dozer. The district court entered judgment for defendants after the jury returned a special verdict finding that Stringer did not use excessive force or act negligently.The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, holding that the district court abused its discretion in excluding plaintiff's proposed testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402. In this case, the district court excluded as irrelevant plaintiff's testimony about her percipient observations of Dozer's past behavior, which she offered to prove that Stringer should have recognized that Dozer was exhibiting signs of mental illness at the time of their encounter and therefore that the shooting was unreasonable. The panel also rejected defendants' alternative argument that plaintiff's proposed testimony was an improper lay opinion under Rule 701. Finally, the panel held that the district court's evidentiary error was not harmless and a new trial was warranted. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Crawford v. City of Bakersfield" on Justia Law

The en banc court affirmed the district court's grant of sentencing relief based on petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, holding that the California Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law when it concluded that petitioner received constitutionally adequate representation at the penalty phase of his trial.The en banc court held that the only reasonable interpretation of Supreme Court precedent and the facts of this case lead to the following conclusions: (1) that counsel failed in their duty to undertake a reasonable investigation at the penalty phase of petitioner's trial; (2) that counsel's choices cannot be rationalized as "strategic" or "tactical;" and (3) that any reasonably competent attorney would have discovered and introduced the substantial and compelling mitigating evidence that existed. The en banc court held that no fair-minded jurist would conclude otherwise. The en banc court also held that the California Supreme Court's conclusion that petitioner suffered no prejudice was objectively unreasonable. Without having heard the substantial and compelling mitigating evidence, the en banc court held that the jury could not fairly gauge petitioner's moral culpability at sentencing. View "Andrews v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the city and police department officials in an action brought by plaintiff, who was 74 years old at the time, challenging the issuance and execution of a search warrant on her home, as well as her detention incident to the search. In this case, officers acted pursuant to a search warrant to investigate an illegal marijuana operation.The panel held that there was probable cause to search plaintiff's mobile home based on the informant's reliability and the probability that probative evidence or contraband would be found in the residences on the property, including the mobile home. Therefore, the search warrant's breadth was co-extensive with the scope of the probable cause and was not overbroad. The panel also held that the officers acted reasonably when they continued to search plaintiff's mobile home because the probable cause to search the mobile home did not depend on the suspect living there. Rather, the panel held that the officers had probable cause to continue the search because they could still reasonably believe that the entire property was suspect and that the property was still under the suspect's common control. Furthermore, the panel held that the duration of the detention, about an hour, was reasonable. Finally, none of plaintiff's alleged omissions amounted to judicial deception. View "Blight v. City of Manteca" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the city's requirement that individuals obtain permits before they use sound amplifying devices within the city. In this case, plaintiff wanted to use a bullhorn to amplify his voice during protests of alleged animal mistreatment at Six Flags Discovery Park.Determining that the case was not moot even in light of the city's recent amendment, the panel held that the district court abused its discretion by concluding that plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claim that the permit requirement imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint on public speech. In this case, although the permit requirement furthered the city's significant interests, it was not narrowly tailored because it covered substantially more speech than necessary to achieve those interests. The panel also held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to recognize a police officer's threat of criminal sanctions against plaintiff as irreparable harm. Furthermore, the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the balance of equities did not tip in plaintiff's favor. Finally, the panel held that it was well within the public interest to issue a preliminary injunction. View "Cuviello v. City of Vallejo" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of police officers in an action brought by a victim of domestic abuse under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law. The panel held that the officers' conduct violated plaintiff's constitutional right to due process by affirmatively increasing the known and obvious danger plaintiff faced. However, the panel held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clear at the time that their conduct was unconstitutional.The panel held that the state-created danger doctrine applies when an officer reveals a domestic violence complaint made in confidence to an abuser while simultaneously making disparaging comments about the victim in a manner that reasonably emboldens the abuser to continue abusing the victim with impunity. The panel also held that the state-created danger doctrine applies when an officer praises an abuser in the abuser's presence after the abuser has been protected from arrest, in a manner that communicates to the abuser that the abuser may continue abusing the victim with impunity. View "Martinez v. City of Clovis" on Justia Law

The State appealed the district court's grant of federal habeas relief to petitioner, a state prisoner sentenced to death for the sexual assault, abuse, and felony murder of a four year old girl.The Ninth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2), which precludes evidentiary hearings on claims that were not developed in state court proceedings, did not prohibit the district court from considering the evidence adduced at the Martinez v. Ryan hearing to determine the merits of petitioner's underlying ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim. The panel explained that when a district court holds an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a petitioner's claim is excused from procedural default under Martinez, it may consider that same evidence to grant habeas relief on the underlying claim.The panel also held that the district court did not err in determining that the assistance provided by petitioner's counsel was constitutionally deficient where he failed to perform an adequate pretrial investigation into whether the victim's injuries were sustained during the time she was with petitioner, and petitioner has demonstrated prejudice due to counsel's failures. In regard to Count Four, this failure only affected the jury's determination that petitioner had acted intentionally or knowingly, but not his underlying guilt on the lesser included offense of reckless misconduct. Therefore, the panel affirmed the grant of habeas relief, but vacated the district court's remedy, remanding for further proceedings. View "Jones v. Shinn" on Justia Law

The en banc court dismissed an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs in an action challenging Nevada Senate Bill 223. SB 223 amended state vicarious liability and lien collection laws to impose certain administrative requirements on labor union trusts when they pursue debt collection on behalf of union members. While this appeal was pending, the Nevada legislature repealed SB 223 and replaced it with SB 338, with the specific intent to avoid the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preemption issues of SB 223.The en banc court joined other circuits and held that the repeal, amendment, or expiration of legislation creates a presumption that an action challenging the legislation is moot, unless there is a reasonable expectation that the legislature is likely to enact the same or substantially similar legislation in the future. Applying these principles in this case, the en banc court held that the action was moot where no live controversy remained. Accordingly, the en banc court remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint. View "Board of Trustees of the Glazing Health and Welfare Trust v. Chambers" on Justia Law