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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's conviction for first degree murder and rape and his capital sentence. The panel held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) applied to petitioner's federal habeas petition and rejected his claim that AEDPA was inapplicable because he had filed a request for appointment of counsel and a stay of execution before AEDPA's effective date; although trial counsel was deficient for retaining a psychiatrist for the penalty phase only a few days before its start and by failing to prepare him adequately, the California Supreme Court could reasonably conclude that he was not prejudiced; the California Supreme Court reasonably decided that petitioner's counsel's performance was not deficient because his counsel could have made a strategic decision to omit a witness' testimony at the penalty phase and he had not shown prejudice; the prosecutor's statements at penalty phase closing argument did not violate petitioner's constitutional rights; the panel rejected petitioner's conflict claim; and the court declined to expand the certificate of appealability to include an unexhausted claim that systemic delay in the administration of California’s death penalty rendered executions arbitrary in violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "Rowland v. Chappell" on Justia Law

Once the government has probable cause to believe that the probationer has actually reoffended by participating in a violent felony, the government's need to locate the probationer and protect the public is heightened. This heightened interest in locating the probationer is sufficient to outweigh a third party's privacy interest in the home that she shares with the probationer. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of police officers and the city in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. Plaintiff and her minor granddaughter alleged that their constitutional rights were violated when officers conducted a search of plaintiff's home. The officers were searching for plaintiff's daughter, who was on probation. The terms of the probation allowed warrantless searches of her person and residence. The panel held that the warrantless search of the home over plaintiff's objection was reasonable as a matter of law. View "Smith v. City of Santa Clara" on Justia Law

Once the government has probable cause to believe that the probationer has actually reoffended by participating in a violent felony, the government's need to locate the probationer and protect the public is heightened. This heightened interest in locating the probationer is sufficient to outweigh a third party's privacy interest in the home that she shares with the probationer. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of police officers and the city in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. Plaintiff and her minor granddaughter alleged that their constitutional rights were violated when officers conducted a search of plaintiff's home. The officers were searching for plaintiff's daughter, who was on probation. The terms of the probation allowed warrantless searches of her person and residence. The panel held that the warrantless search of the home over plaintiff's objection was reasonable as a matter of law. View "Smith v. City of Santa Clara" on Justia Law

In a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action challenging Butte County Jail's policy prohibiting the delivery of unsolicited commercial mail to inmates, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for defendants and the denial of plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery and for relief from judgment. Plaintiff, publisher of a magazine aimed at county jail inmates, argued that the jail's mail policy violated the First Amendment. The panel evaluated the mail policy under the test established for reviewing constitutional challenges to prison regulations in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), and held that the ban was rationally connected to a legitimate government interest; electronic kiosks were an adequate alternative; distributing the magazine itself would have a significant impact on the allocation of jail resources; and paper has created serious problems at the jail, and the jail's mail policy was not an exaggerated response to those problems. Finally, the panel held that plaintiff abandoned its remaining arguments. View "Crime Justice & America, Inc. v. Honea" on Justia Law

28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all plaintiffs and defendants named in the complaint—irrespective of service of process—before jurisdiction may vest in a magistrate judge to hear and decide a civil case that a district court would otherwise hear. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the magistrate judge's dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit brought by a civil detainee, because consent was not obtained from defendants in this case. Therefore, the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint. View "Williams v. King" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Glassdoor's motion to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum requiring disclosure of identifying information of eight users who posted anonymous reviews about another company on its Internet website. A federal grand jury sought the identifying information from Glassdoor as part of its investigation into whether a government contractor was committing wire fraud and misuse of government funds. Glassdoor argued that complying with the subpoena would violate its users' First Amendment rights to associational privacy and anonymous speech. The panel held that the good faith test the Supreme Court established in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), was controlling in this case. The court held that there was no evidence that the grand jury's investigation of fraud, waste, and abuse by a third party in performing a government contract was being conducted in bad faith. View "United States v. Glassdoor, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law, alleging excessive use of force when a police officer shot and killed her son, Connor Zion. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims. In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, the Ninth Circuit held that Officer Higgins did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment by emptying his weapon at Zion. However, the head stomps were different because a jury could reasonably find that Higgins knew or easily could have determined that he had already rendered Zion harmless. If so, a reasonable jury could also conclude that Higgins was acting out of anger or emotion rather than any legitimate law enforcement purpose. The panel reversed as to the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. The panel affirmed as to the municipal liability claims and remanded the remaining claims for the district court to consider in the first instance. View "Zion v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

This petition for writ of mandamus arose in the context of a contested trademark action initiated by San Diego Comic Convention (SDCC) against petitioners, over the use of the mark "comic-con" or "comic con." The Ninth Circuit granted the petition and vacated the district court's orders directing petitioners to prominently post on their social medial outlets its order prohibiting comments about the litigation on social media, dubbing this posting a "disclaimer." The panel held that the orders at issue were unconstitutional prior restraints on speech because they prohibit speech that poses neither a clear and present danger nor a serious and imminent threat to SDCC's interest in a fair trial. The panel explained that the well-established doctrines on jury selection and the court's inherent management powers provide an alternative, less restrictive, means of ensuring a fair trial. View "Dan Farr Productions v. USDC-CASD" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment invalidating Montana's limits of the amount of money individuals, political action committees, and political parties may contribute to candidates for state elective office, Montana Code Annotated 13-37-216. The panel held that Montana has shown the risk of actual or perceived quid pro quo corruption in Montana politics was more than "mere conjecture," which was the low bar that it must overcome. The panel also held that Montana's limits were "closely drawn" to serve the state's anti-corruption interest, and the limits were tailored to avoid favoring incumbents, not to curtail the influence of political parties, and to permit candidates to raise enough money to make their voices heard. View "Lair v. Motl" on Justia Law

Anthony Jones's parents filed suit against the Police Department and all of the officers involved in the restraining, tasing, and resulting death of Jones. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims. At issue on appeal were the claims against Officers Hatten and English. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to give plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to substitute the proper party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 and thus cure the defective complaint. The panel also held that a jury could reasonably conclude that the officers knew or should have known that their use of tasers created a substantial risk of serious injury or death, and thus there were triable issues of fact as to whether the officers' continuous and simultaneous tasing was reasonable under the circumstances, and whether the officers were on notice that the force they used could cause serious injury or death. Furthermore, there was clearly established Fourth Amendment law at the time of the tasing and a jury could reasonably conclude that the officers used excessive force. Therefore, the court reversed as to this issue. The panel affirmed as to the Fourteenth Amendment claim and the false arrest/imprisonment claims, but remanded as to the state law battery and negligence claims. View "Jones v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept." on Justia Law