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

After plaintiff was criminally charged, plaintiff filed a civil action against United Airlines in state court, alleging that its personnel falsified police reports, falsely diagnosed an epileptic seizure, and threatened him with an ice mallet, among other things. United removed the case to district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The court granted United's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff then filed the present action against defendant, the Prosecuting Attorney of King County, contending that he had no jurisdiction to file a criminal complaint against plaintiff. Defendant moved for summary judgment, plaintiff did not file any response, and the district court granted the motion. Plaintiff did not file anything further in the district court, and, instead, filed this appeal to the court. The court agreed with plaintiff that, under the Federal Rules, a motion for summary judgment could not be granted based on a failure to file an opposition to the motion, regardless of any local rule that suggested the contrary. However, on the merits, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment where defendant was entitled to summary judgment based on any of his three arguments presented in his motion. View "Heinemann v. Satterberg" on Justia Law

The district court denied habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner but issued a certificate of appealability (COA) on five issues. The district court then appointed appellate counsel under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. 3006A. Counsel subsequently filed an opening brief under Anders v. California, seeking permission to withdraw. At issue on appeal was what procedure appointed counsel in a habeas appeal should follow when seeking to withdraw. The court concluded that Ninth Circuit Rule 4-1 directly addressed the issue; counsel followed the proper procedure under Rule 4-1(c)(6); and, on the merits, the certified issues provided no basis for appellate relief and the court declined to expand the COA to cover the uncertified issues identified in the Anders brief. Accordingly, the court granted the district court's judgment and granted the motion for counsel to withdraw as counsel of record for petitioner. View "Graves v. McEwen" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murdering his wife, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief, claiming that his constitutional right to adequate notice of the nature of the charges against him was violated when the trial court instructed the jury on aiding-and-abetting liability. The district court agreed and granted the petition. The court concluded that the prosecution's conduct affirmatively led petitioner to believe it would rely on an aiding-and-abetting liability theory. Thus, the aiding and abetting jury instruction violated petitioner's fundamental right to receive notice of the nature of the charges against him and have a meaningful opportunity to prepare a defense. Given the closely balanced evidence, the court could not say that the trial court's error was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smith v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegally entering the United States during an "Operation Streamline" proceeding. The court concluded that, although the district court did not err by advising defendants of their rights en masse, it erred by not questioning defendant individually to ensure that she understood her rights; the government has not carried its burden of proving that defendant would have pleaded guilty even without the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1) error; and, therefore, defendant's convictions must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Arqueta-Ramos" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the jury verdict finding him guilty of sexual exploitation of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and knowingly receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2). The court concluded that section 2251(a) did not require that the defendant have knowledge that the materials used to produce child pornography had traveled in interstate commerce; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting at trial defendant's prior conviction for possession of child pornography; and a rational jury could conclude that the videos introduced at trial depicted sexually explicit conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sheldon" on Justia Law

This case involved the forfeiture of $671,170 in currency seized from a vehicle rented by claimant, a Canadian citizen. Claimant appealed the district court's dismissal of his verified claim and answer, and the resulting default judgment in favor of the United States, contending that he did not meet the statutory definition of a fugitive from justice under the Fugitive Disentitlement Statute, 28 U.S.C. 2466. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances supported the district court's conclusion that claimant has intentionally declined to return to the United States as to avoid submitting to the jurisdiction of the California courts and consequently facing the criminal charge pending against him. Therefore, the court concluded that claimant was a fugitive under section 2466(a)(1); the district court did not abuse its discretion in disentitling claimant under section 2466 and striking his answer and claim to the forfeited funds; and the district court did not err in denying claimant's request to convert the government's motion into a motion for summary judgment. The court declined to address claimant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. $671, 160 in U.S. Currency" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with production, distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography. Law enforcement officers found 3,400 electronic images and 632 electronic videos of commercial child pornography pursuant to a warrant authorizing an electronic search of all of defendant's computer equipment and digital storage devices. The district court granted defendant's motion to suppress the evidence and the government appealed. The court concluded that, because there was a fair probability that evidence of child pornography would be found on defendant's computer system, the underlying facts supported a finding of probable cause; the warrant was not overbroad and did not raise the risks inherent in over-seizing that the court considered in United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. (CDT III); the absence of precautionary search protocols, suggested as guidance in the plurality's concurring opinion in CDT III, was not fatal here; and, therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Schesso" on Justia Law

On interlocutory appeal, the government challenged the district court's grant of reconsideration and suppression of evidence found at an apartment defendant had entered several times in recent days before the search. At issue was whether the warrantless search of the apartment was valid under the Fourth Amendment because defendant was subject to a parole search condition. The court concluded that under its "relatively stringent" standard, the officers lacked probable cause to conclude that defendant lived at the apartment that they searched. In this instance, it was abundantly clear that the searched property was a residence, a parole condition permitting searches of "your residence and any property under your control" was triggered only when the officers have probable cause that the parolee lives at the residence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Grandberry" on Justia Law

Petitioner, along with one of his accomplices, was found guilty of murder. After petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied, the court granted a certificate of appealability to the issue of whether the exclusion of the accomplice's statement violated petitioner's right to present a complete defense. The court concluded that the holding of the California Court of Appeal that the accomplice's confession was properly excluded was entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254. The accomplice gave three conflicting and contradictory versions of the murder and it was not unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that these statements rendered the accomplice's own inculpatory statement unreliable. View "Phillips v. Herndon" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to two counts of possessing child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged his 240-month concurrent sentences. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing where the district court erred in considering defendant's compelled statements obtained during sex offender treatment in violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court left the issue of the admissibility of a witness's testimony for the district court on remand and declined to reassign the case. View "United States v. Bahr, Jr." on Justia Law