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

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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's California conviction and sentence for the first-degree murder and sexual assault of an eight-year-old girl. The panel held that the state court reasonably rejected petitioner's Napue claim challenging the serology evidence where, even assuming that there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny the claim as to the first two Napue requirements, the panel could not say that it would be unreasonable to conclude that the testimony did not satisfy the materiality element. The panel noted that, even setting aside the serology testimony, the case against petitioner was devastating and largely unchallenged. The panel also held that, even assuming counsel's performance was deficient, it could not say that the state court would have erred in finding no reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. View "Panah v. Chappell" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against police officers, the LAPD, and the City, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and various state laws. Plaintiffs were four teenagers who met in an alleyway near their school to listen to and sing rap music. One of the teenagers was holding a plastic replica gun as a prop when Officer Gutierrez shot him because the officer mistook the replica gun as an actual gun.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling as to the Fourth Amendment claim and held that plaintiffs' detention for five hours—well after any probable cause would have dissipated—and the use of handcuffs throughout the duration of the detention violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful arrest and excessive force. Furthermore, a reasonable jury could conclude that Gutierrez was more than a mere bystander, but rather played an integral role in the unlawfully prolonged detention and sustained handcuffing of plaintiffs. The panel reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Gutierrez as to the Fourteenth Amendment claim, holding that although Gutierrez's conduct violated plaintiff's substantive due process rights, the right was not clearly established at the time. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Nicholson v. Los Angeles" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for the Mayo Clinic in an action alleging employment discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.In light of Supreme Court precedent, the panel held that its decision in Head v. Glacier Northwest, Inc., 413 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2005), holding ADA discrimination claims are evaluated under a motivating factor causation standard, is no longer good law. The panel held that Head was irreconcilable with the Supreme Court's decisions in Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), and Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013). The panel agreed with its sister circuits and held that an ADA discrimination plaintiff bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C. 2112 must show that the adverse employment action would not have occurred but for the disability. Therefore, the district court correctly instructed the jury to apply a but for causation standard, rather than a motivating factor standard. View "Murray v. Mayo Clinic" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Medtronic in an employment discrimination action brought by plaintiff under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff alleged that he was terminated based on his morbid obesity, but the district court held that morbid obesity was not a physical impairment under the relevant EEOC regulations and interpretive guidance.The panel held that it need not determine whether morbid obesity itself is an impairment under the ADA, and affirmed the district court's judgment for Medtronic on alternative grounds. The panel held that, even assuming that morbid obesity were an impairment, or plaintiff suffered from a disabling knee condition that the district court could have considered, he would have to show some causal relationship between these impairments and his termination. In this case, there was no basis for concluding that he was terminated for any reason other than Medtronic's stated ground that he falsified records to show he had completed work assignments. View "Valtierra v. Medtronic Inc." on Justia Law

Members of the Tribe filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of various federal statutory and constitutional rights, stemming from traffic citations issued to members of the Tribe from a sheriff's deputy inside the boundaries of the Chemehuevi Reservation. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment to defendants.The panel held that the Chemehuevi Reservation includes Section 36, and that Section 36 is Indian country. Therefore, the County does not have jurisdiction to enforce California regulatory laws within it. Furthermore, the panel held that the individual members have a cause of action under section 1983 against defendants. However, the Tribe cannot assert its sovereign rights under the statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. View "Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon" on Justia Law