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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment on the pleadings in an action challenging a city ordinance that limits the rights of landlords to commence and conduct buyout negotiations. The panel held that the Ordinance did not prevent plaintiffs, an individual property owner and several landlord organizations, from commencing buyout negotiations if a tenant refuses to sign the disclosure form; the Disclosure Provision did not violate plaintiffs' First Amendment rights; the creation of a publicly searchable database of buyout agreements did not violate landlords' right to privacy under the California Constitution; the Ordinance did not violate landlords' rights to equal protection or due process; and the Condominium Conversion Provision did not violate landlords' "liberty of contract." View "San Francisco Apartment Assoc. v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action alleging violations of plaintiff's First and Fifth Amendment rights under the implied cause of action theory adopted by the Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), as well as state law claims. Neither the Supreme Court nor this court have expanded Bivens in the context of a prisoner's First Amendment access to court or Fifth Amendment procedural due process claims arising out of a prison disciplinary process, and the circumstances of plaintiff's case against private defendants plainly presented a "new context" under Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1854 (2017). The panel also held that plaintiff had alternative means for relief against the alleged violations of his First and Fifth Amendment rights by the private defendants. In a memorandum opinion, the panel addressed plaintiff's remaining arguments. View "Vega v. United States" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action alleging violations of plaintiff's First and Fifth Amendment rights under the implied cause of action theory adopted by the Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), as well as state law claims. Neither the Supreme Court nor this court have expanded Bivens in the context of a prisoner's First Amendment access to court or Fifth Amendment procedural due process claims arising out of a prison disciplinary process, and the circumstances of plaintiff's case against private defendants plainly presented a "new context" under Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1854 (2017). The panel also held that plaintiff had alternative means for relief against the alleged violations of his First and Fifth Amendment rights by the private defendants. In a memorandum opinion, the panel addressed plaintiff's remaining arguments. View "Vega v. United States" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order on remand denying petitioner's claims that the California state court improperly denied his motion for a new trial based on the State's prosecutorial misconduct. Petitioner was convicted of raping and killing an eighteen-month-old girl. The panel held that the district court properly denied further discovery in light of its finding that there was no good cause to permit additional discovery because petitioner received the adverse inference he desired and further discovery into the State's alleged spoliation of evidence would not affect the decision of the remaining witness intimidation claim of the habeas petition. The panel also held that the district court did not clearly err in weighing the credibility of the witnesses in light of the evidence adduced at the hearing. View "Earp v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and attorney's fees in favor of plaintiffs in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action challenging a public school's policies. The policies prohibited, among other things, picketing on school district property, and prohibited strikers from coming onto school grounds, even for reasons unrelated to an anticipated teachers' strike. Plaintiffs also filed state law claims. The panel held that the government speech doctrine did not authorize the government's suppression of contrary views. In this case, no reasonable observer would have misperceived the speech which the school district sought to suppress—speech favoring the teachers' side in the strike—as a position taken by the school district itself. The panel also held that, because the school district's policies were neither reasonable nor viewpoint neutral, they failed even the non-public forum test and thus violated the First Amendment rights of Union members. Furthermore, the policies violated rights of Union members under the Oregon Constitution, and the school district was properly held liable for the actions of its security officer in barring Plaintiff Boyer from the school parking lot because she had a sign on the back windshield of her car supporting the teachers. View "Eagle Point Education Association v. Jackson County School District No. 9" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint alleging that the temporary appointment of then-Lieutenant Governor Brian Schatz as the United States senator from Hawaii violated their rights under the Seventeenth Amendment. The panel held that plaintiffs' failure to seek an injunction did not foreclose the availability of the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to mootness; a temporary appointment to the United States Senate under Hawaii Revised Statute 17-1 lasts, at most, two years and five months; the controversy over the legality of such an appointment was one of inherently limited duration; and plaintiffs had not demonstrated that expedited review would have been unavailable in a case like theirs. View "Hamamoto v. Ige" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that social workers violated their constitutional rights to family unity and companionship, and as well as their small children's rights, by removing the children from home without a warrant or court order. Plaintiffs were the subject of a criminal investigation after they tried to print nude photos of their three children. Determining that the appeal was timely, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying plaintiffs' motion to seal the summary judgment order where the district court protected the privacy of the children, Arizona law prohibits the Department of Economic Security from releasing the files, the district court order employed clinical, anatomically correct language to briefly describe the nudity depicted in the photographs, plaintiffs did not file their complaint under seal, and plaintiffs gave public interviews where they described the photos at issue. The panel reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the social workers based on qualified immunity, holding that the social workers did not have reasonable cause to believe the children were at risk of serious bodily harm or molestation when they removed the children from their home without judicial authorization. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Demaree v. Pederson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that social workers violated their constitutional rights to family unity and companionship, and as well as their small children's rights, by removing the children from home without a warrant or court order. Plaintiffs were the subject of a criminal investigation after they tried to print nude photos of their three children. Determining that the appeal was timely, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying plaintiffs' motion to seal the summary judgment order where the district court protected the privacy of the children, Arizona law prohibits the Department of Economic Security from releasing the files, the district court order employed clinical, anatomically correct language to briefly describe the nudity depicted in the photographs, plaintiffs did not file their complaint under seal, and plaintiffs gave public interviews where they described the photos at issue. The panel reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the social workers based on qualified immunity, holding that the social workers did not have reasonable cause to believe the children were at risk of serious bodily harm or molestation when they removed the children from their home without judicial authorization. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Demaree v. Pederson" on Justia Law

Section 647(b) of the California Penal Code, which criminalizes the commercial exchange of sexual activity, does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of ESP's action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the constitutionality of Section 647(b). In light of IDK, Inc. v. Clark Cnty., 836 F.2d 1185, 1193 (9th Cir. 1998), rather than Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 562 (2003), the panel held that laws invalidating prostitution may be justified by rational basis review. The panel held that Section 647(b) is rationally related to several important governmental interests, any of which support a finding of no constitutional violation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; Section 647(b) does not violate the freedom of intimate or expressive association; and Section 647(b) does not violate the right to earn a living. The panel also held that Section 647(b) does not violate the First Amendment freedom of speech because prostitution did not constitute protected commercial speech and therefore did not warrant such protection. View "Erotic Service Provider Legal Education and Research Project v. Gascon" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action challenging the constitutionality of California Family Code Section 7962. Section 7962 codified California cases that found gestational surrogacy contracts enforceable. The panel held that this case did not fall within the two limited categories of civil cases that define the scope of Younger abstention. Therefore, the district court erred by abstaining. However, notwithstanding this error, the panel affirmed on issue preclusion grounds the dismissal of the complaint because the California Court of Appeal's decision precluded further litigation of plaintiff's constitutional claims. View "Cook v. Harding" on Justia Law