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

Defendant challenged his conviction for stalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2261A. The court agreed with the Eighth Circuit's rationale that, because section 2261A proscribes harassing and intimidating conduct, the statute is not facially invalid under the First Amendment. Defendant's argument that section 2261A(2)(A) is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define "harass" or "substantial emotional distress" is equally unavailing. Defendant's threats, creation of a false Facebook page with sexually explicit photographs of his ex-girlfriend, and emails to her co-workers and friends containing explicit photographs evinced defendant's intent to cause substantial emotional distress. Therefore, defendant's unrelenting harassment and intimidation of his ex-girlfriend was not based on conduct that he could not have known was illegal. Defendant's as-applied challenge was similarly unavailing given his intent to harass and intimidate a private individual by circulating sexually explicit publications that were never in the public domain. Finally, the district court's sentence was reasonable where defendant was not entitled to any downward adjustment premised on acceptance of responsibility or on sentence disparity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Osinger" on Justia Law

After plaintiff served four and a half years in prison and then ordered freed when his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted, he filed an action for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleged that defendants, acting under color of State law, unlawfully suppressed the criminal history of a confidential informant who was the main witness against him, failed to produce the documents reflecting that criminal history, and thus caused him to be found guilty of several counts of drug trafficking and to be sentenced to a term of ten to twenty-five years. The district court dismissed the action as time-barred because it was not filed within two years of the time plaintiff learned that the confidential informant had an extensive criminal history. The court granted Washoe County's motion to supplement the record and the court took judicial notice of the court documents presented by the motion. Under Heck v. Humphrey, plaintiff's cause of action did not accrue until his conviction was held invalid. Therefore, plaintiff's claims did not accrue until the Nevada court vacated his convictions on December 2, 2008. Since plaintiff commenced his lawsuit on December 1, 2010, less than two years after December 2, 2008, his claim was timely and the district court erred in dismissing it as time-barred. The court rejected Defendant Palmer's argument for dismissing the complaint against him; plaintiff's claims against Washoe County and the City of Reno were dismissed without prejudice; and the court remanded for the district court to consider if and to what extent plaintiff's plea to the crime of Unlawful Giving Away of Controlled Substances affects his section 1983 action. View "Rosales-Martinez v. Palmer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an Idaho state prisoner, filed suit against individual prison officials under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., claiming that they had imposed an unwarranted burden on his exercise of religion. Prison officials curtailed plaintiff's opportunities for chapel access after they found out that he was utilizing the chapel facilities to further his romantic relationships with prison guards. The court joined its sister circuits and held that plaintiff may not seek damages against prison officials in their individual capacities principally because RLUIPA was enacted pursuant to Congress's constitutional powers under the Spending Clause, and the individual defendants are not recipients of any federal funds. In regards to plaintiff's First Amendment claim, there was insufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact as to a retaliatory motive. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. View "Wood v. Yordy" on Justia Law

California prisons have been operating under a receivership since 2006 to comply with consent decrees. This appeal involved provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. 3626, relating to the termination of such decrees. After the Supreme Court affirmed the three-judge court decision concerning the release orders in this case, the three-judge court in early 2013 asked the State when it intended to file a motion to terminate. The State responded that it hoped to be able to file within a few months. Plaintiffs indicated their need to file an informed response to such motion and the district court ordered the State to disclose its expert witnesses and their reports at least 120 days before it filed a motion to terminate. The court concluded that the district court's order was a sensible scheduling order designed to provide the court and plaintiffs with adequate notice of the evidence the State intended to rely upon in a motion to terminate; the order established a schedule for expert disclosures that was consistent with the State's own time line, and did not affect the operation of the automatic stay; and there was no clear error in the district court's issuance of the order. The court need not reach plaintiffs' claim that without the notice provisions of the order, the automatic stay provision violates due process. Accordingly, the court denied what the court construed as the State's Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. View "Plata v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences for producing and possessing a sexually explicit video depicting a fourteen-year-old girl (Counts 1 and 2 respectively). The court concluded that venue was proper in regards to Count 1, 18 U.S.C. 2251(a); Count 1 and Count 2, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B), were constitutionally applied to defendant; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence contained from his laptop where the district court did not err in striking the balance between the intrusion into defendant's interest and the opposing law enforcement interests in favor of the government; because defendant's prior convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age and oral copulation with a minor under 16 years of age categorically relates to sexual abuse as that phrase is ordinarily understood, the district court properly applied the mandatory minimum enhancement provisions to defendant's prior state convictions. Because the court could not tell if the district court would impose the same sentence if it applied the correct legal analysis when sustaining defendant's objection to the inclusion of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, the court remanded for resentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for importation of marijuana. The court rejected defendant's contention that the prosecutor improperly vouched and violated the advocate-witness rule where defendant failed to demonstrate that the prosecutorial error in this case affected his substantial rights. The court concluded, however, that the district court did not adequately explain why it declined to apply the two-level sentence reduction under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(16). Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Rangel-Guzman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against two officers, a medical doctor, and nurse alleging that they violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when the doctor, forcibly and without consent, removed a plastic baggie containing cocaine base from plaintiff's rectum. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officers. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim, holding that the doctor's actions could be attributed to the state, based on the court's holding that a reasonable jury could conclude that the officers provided false information, encouragement, and active physical assistance to the doctor; therefore, the officers could be held responsible for the procedures performed by the doctor; based on the Winston v. Lee factors, a jury could conclude that the procedures performed by the doctor violated the Eighth Amendment; and the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court affirmed summary judgment as to the Fourteenth Amendment claim where plaintiff has not identified a single case finding a Fourteenth Amendment violation under circumstances like those here. The court declined to address issues related to the doctor. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "George v. Edholm, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to a one-count information alleging that he reentered the country without authorization after being removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. On appeal, defendant challenged his 42-month sentence as exceeding the maximum sentence allowed under the operative statute. In this case, the district court accepted defendant's plea without requiring him to admit the removal date essential to the enhanced sentence. Because defendant did not admit to the 2011 removal date, the district court's sentence of more than two years, unlike the sentence in United States v. Mendoza-Zaragoza, did not rest on an admission by the defendant, and so violated Apprendi v. New Jersey. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Guerrero-Jasso" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's dismissal of an indictment against defendant for financial aid fraud. Defendant, a counselor and professor at a community college, assisted students in obtaining federal financial aid by falsifying and electronically submitting FAFSA forms. The court concluded that 20 U.S.C. 1097(a) does not require a defendant to personally receive or exercise control over federally insured funds obtained by fraud. The court held that the statute encompasses the act of taking money from the government via false statements and causing it to be disbursed by others. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment and reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Ezeta" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. The court concluded that the district court correctly applied a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his prior conviction for battery with injury on a peace officer in violation of California Penal Code 243(c)(2) because section 243(c)(2) is a categorical crime of violence under the Guidelines. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Colon-Arreola" on Justia Law