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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief for petitioner, who was criminally convicted in both state and federal court. Petitioner argued that his federal sentence actually commenced on one of the instances when the state prematurely transferred him to the federal authorities, and thus he should receive credit against his federal sentence for the period starting on the date he was erroneously turned over to federal authorities and including all his time in state prison after he was returned to state custody. The panel explained that because the state credited the time the federal authorities erroneously held petitioner against his state sentence, he effectively sought double-credit against both his state and federal sentences for the period between August 2009 and June 2011. The panel held that because these erroneous transfers did not manifest the state's consent to terminate its primary jurisdiction over petitioner, he was not in federal custody for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 3585(a), and therefore the federal sentence did not commence. View "Johnson v. Gill" on Justia Law

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), did not require the district court to abstain from hearing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the conditions of pretrial detention in state court. The Ninth Circuit held that the State has acted in good faith throughout this litigation with respect to the substantive merits of petitioner's claim; petitioner's case fell within the irreparable harm exception to Younger where he has been incarcerated for over six months without a constitutionally adequate bail hearing; and petitioner has properly exhausted his state remedies as to his bail hearing. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus, providing that the writ issue unless the California Superior Court conducts a new constitutionally compliant bail hearing within fourteen days after the issuance of the district court's order conditionally granting the petition. View "Arevalo v. Hennessy" 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

A presumption of validity did not attach to a stipulation by defense counsel that their clients waived their right to a jury trial on their criminal charges. The Ninth Circuit reversed based on the ineffective jury trial waivers in this case and held that the record was insufficient to show that the jury trial waivers were voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. The panel reasoned that the proper practice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a) was for the defendant to personally execute the written waiver. Therefore, the panel concluded that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, but remanded based on the ineffective jury trial waivers. View "United States v. Laney" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied defendants' 28 U.S.C. 2255 motions challenging the validity of their convictions for carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. The panel held that bank robbery "by force and violence, or by intimidation" is a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The panel reasoned that, because defendants' predicate offense, armed bank robbery, could not be based on conduct that involved less force than unarmed bank robbery requires, armed bank robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under section 924(c) as well. View "United States v. Watson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's imposition of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), after defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The panel held that neither of defendant's prior convictions for first-degree robbery under Alabama law nor second-degree robbery under California law was a violent felony under the ACCA. In this case, at least two of defendant's four prior non-drug convictions did not qualify as violent felonies and thus defendant should not have been subject to the ACCA's mandatory sentencing provision. Accordingly, the panel remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Walton" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for transporting an illegal alien for financial gain. The panel held that the district court's instruction to the jurors defining "reckless disregard" was incorrect where, even assuming the jury instruction required that defendant be aware of facts from which the inference of the risk at issue could be drawn, it plainly did not require that defendant actually draw the inference. In other words, defendant was subjectively aware of the risk. The panel reasoned that this was not the proper case in which to conduct a harmless error review. The panel also held that the district court improperly admitted the passenger's videotaped deposition, because the government made an insufficient showing that the passenger was "unavailable," where the government's efforts to secure his presence were not reasonable. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

A California conviction for carjacking under Penal Code section 215(a) does not qualify as a crime of violence. The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review of a final order of removal. The panel held that Nieves-Medrano v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2010), which held that a conviction for carjacking under section 215 is categorically a crime of violence under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F), cannot stand in light of Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 140 (2010), which held that the physical force that a crime of violence entails must be violent force. Because section 215 did not require the use of violent force that Johnson required, the California statute was not a crime of violence. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Solorio-Ruiz v. Sessions" on Justia Law