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

Brian Houston, representing a putative class, filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County and Sheriff Paul Penzone, alleging that the County's practice of posting arrestees' photographs and identifying information on its Mugshot Lookup website violated his substantive and procedural due process rights and his right to a speedy public trial. Houston's mugshot and personal details were posted online for three days following his arrest, even though he was never prosecuted. He claimed this caused him public humiliation, reputational harm, and emotional distress.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed Houston's claims. The court found that the Mugshot Lookup post was not a condition of pretrial detention and that Houston failed to show a cognizable liberty or property interest under state law for his procedural due process claim. The court also dismissed his Sixth Amendment claim, noting that Houston was not prosecuted and thus had no trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of Houston's substantive due process claim, holding that Houston sufficiently alleged that the Mugshot Lookup post caused him actionable harm and that the County's transparency justification did not rationally relate to the punitive nature of the post. The court affirmed the dismissal of Houston's procedural due process claim, as he did not demonstrate a protected liberty or property interest under state law. The court also affirmed the dismissal of his Sixth Amendment claim, as Houston was not prosecuted and thus had no right to a speedy trial.The Ninth Circuit concluded that Houston adequately pleaded a substantive due process claim but failed to state claims for procedural due process and Sixth Amendment violations. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "HOUSTON V. MARICOPA COUNTY" on Justia Law

In the wake of George Floyd's death in May 2020, Los Angeles experienced widespread protests. The plaintiffs, including Black Lives Matter Los Angeles and several individuals, filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and then-LAPD Chief Michel Moore. They alleged that the LAPD used excessive force, arrested protestors without probable cause, and restricted their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit sought to certify four classes: a Direct Force Class, an Arrest Class, an Infraction Class, and an Injunctive Relief Class.The United States District Court for the Central District of California certified all four classes. The court found that the plaintiffs had raised common questions about whether LAPD customs or policies caused their injuries. However, the district court did not rigorously analyze whether the damages classes satisfied the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a) or whether common questions predominated over individual ones under Rule 23(b)(3). The court also failed to address whether the Injunctive Relief Class met the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a).The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s class certification order. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not rigorously analyze whether the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to meet the class certification requirements. Specifically, the district court did not adequately address the commonality and predominance requirements for the damages classes or identify common questions for the Injunctive Relief Class. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case with instructions for the district court to fully address Rule 23’s class certification requirements. View "BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

The case involves X Corp., the owner of a large social media platform, challenging California Assembly Bill AB 587. This law requires large social media companies to post their terms of service and submit semiannual reports to the California Attorney General detailing their content-moderation policies and practices, including how they define and address categories like hate speech, extremism, and misinformation. X Corp. sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of AB 587, arguing that it violates free speech and is federally preempted.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied X Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that X Corp. was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim, applying the Zauderer standard for compelled commercial speech. The court concluded that the law's requirements were purely factual and uncontroversial, and reasonably related to the state's interest in transparency. The court also rejected X Corp.'s preemption argument, stating that AB 587 does not impose liability for content moderation activities but only for failing to make required disclosures.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the Content Category Report provisions of AB 587 likely compel non-commercial speech and are subject to strict scrutiny because they are content-based. The court found that these provisions are not narrowly tailored to serve the state's interest in transparency and therefore likely fail strict scrutiny. The court also determined that the remaining factors for a preliminary injunction weighed in favor of X Corp. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with its opinion and to determine whether the Content Category Report provisions are severable from the rest of AB 587. View "X CORP. V. BONTA" on Justia Law

Jesus Ramiro Gomez was sentenced to 188 months in prison for distributing methamphetamine. The district court applied a career offender enhancement, which significantly increased his sentence. This enhancement was based on Gomez's prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1), which the district court classified as a "crime of violence."The United States District Court for the Central District of California initially reviewed the case. The court found that Gomez's prior conviction qualified as a crime of violence, thus applying the career offender enhancement. This decision was based on previous rulings that had classified California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) as a crime of violence. Gomez did not object to this classification at the time of sentencing but raised the issue on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated Gomez's sentence and remanded for resentencing. The Ninth Circuit held that, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021), California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) does not qualify as a crime of violence. The court reasoned that the statute includes reckless uses of force, which do not meet the elements clause of the career offender guideline requiring a mens rea more culpable than recklessness. The court also rejected the government's argument that the conviction could be classified as aggravated assault under the enumerated offenses clause, as this too requires a mens rea greater than extreme recklessness. Consequently, the district court's application of the career offender enhancement was deemed improper. View "USA V. GOMEZ" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2020, Derrick Sanderlin attended a protest in San Jose, California, where he was struck in the groin by a 40mm foam baton round fired by Officer Michael Panighetti. Sanderlin alleged that Panighetti's use of force was retaliatory and excessive, violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights. Sanderlin claimed he was peacefully protesting and did not hear any warnings before being shot. Panighetti argued that Sanderlin was obstructing officers from targeting other individuals who posed a threat.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Panighetti's motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether Panighetti's actions were retaliatory and whether the force used was excessive. The court found that a jury could determine that Sanderlin was engaged in protected First Amendment activity and that Panighetti's actions were motivated by retaliatory animus. Additionally, the court held that a reasonable jury could find that Sanderlin was seized under the Fourth Amendment and that the force used was unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Panighetti. The Ninth Circuit held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Sanderlin, genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether Panighetti's use of force was retaliatory and excessive. The court concluded that it was clearly established that police officers may not use their authority to retaliate against individuals for protected speech and that the use of a 40mm foam baton round against a non-threatening individual constituted excessive force. The court also determined that subsequent legal developments did not alter the clearly established law at the time of the incident. View "SANDERLIN V. DWYER" on Justia Law

Artak Ovsepian participated in a healthcare fraud scheme at Manor Medical Imaging, Inc., a sham clinic in Glendale, California. The clinic generated prescriptions for unnecessary medications, which were billed to Medicare and Medi-Cal. Manor employees used the identifying information of Medicare and Medi-Cal beneficiaries, often without their knowledge, to fill these prescriptions. Ovsepian joined the conspiracy in 2010, managing drivers who transported beneficiaries to pharmacies to fill fraudulent prescriptions.The government charged Ovsepian with conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). At trial, the government narrowed the aggravated identity theft charge to the possession of one victim’s identifying information. The jury found Ovsepian guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to 180 months, including a mandatory 24-month sentence for aggravated identity theft. Ovsepian’s direct appeals were unsuccessful, and the Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari.Ovsepian filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his aggravated identity theft conviction, arguing actual innocence. The district court denied the motion, and the Ninth Circuit initially denied a certificate of appealability. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Dubin v. United States, which clarified the interpretation of the aggravated identity theft statute.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Ovsepian’s § 2255 motion. The court held that a petitioner convicted under a divisible statute must demonstrate actual innocence only for the prong under which they were convicted. The court found that the jury instructions were erroneous because they did not convey that possession of another’s identifying information must be central to the healthcare fraud to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit vacated Ovsepian’s conviction and sentence for aggravated identity theft. View "USA V. OVSEPIAN" on Justia Law

A federal inmate, Mitchell Garraway, filed a Bivens action against three prison officials, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to his safety, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. Garraway claimed that despite informing the officials of his cellmate's violent behavior and requesting a cell change, they refused, resulting in an assault by his cellmate. The officials moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing no Bivens remedy exists for failure to protect an inmate from prisoner violence. The district court denied this motion, and after the Supreme Court's decision in Egbert v. Boule, the officials sought reconsideration, which was also denied. They then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California initially denied the officials' motion for judgment on the pleadings, agreeing with Garraway that his case did not differ meaningfully from Farmer v. Brennan. After the Supreme Court's decision in Egbert, the officials filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied by the district court, reaffirming that Farmer remained intact post-Egbert. The officials then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that district court orders extending Bivens, absent a denial of qualified immunity, are not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The court emphasized that delaying review of such orders does not threaten significant public interests and that any improper judicial intrusion into the legislative function can be effectively rectified upon review of a final judgment. The court concluded that the next logical step in the litigation would be for the federal-officer defendant to claim qualified immunity, the denial of which would be immediately appealable. View "GARRAWAY V. CIUFO" on Justia Law

The case involves Michael Leite and Andrea Carvalho, who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2019. The IRS had a federal tax lien on their property for unpaid taxes from 2009, totaling $81,174.13, which included $45,938.99 in taxes and interest, and $24,991.14 in penalties. The property was sold, netting $38,640.80. The Bankruptcy Trustee sought to avoid the penalty portion of the lien under 11 U.S.C. § 724(a) and proposed a pro rata allocation of the sale proceeds between the IRS and the Bankruptcy Estate.The Bankruptcy Court allocated the proceeds on a pro rata basis, reasoning that the IRS and the Estate shared the same lien priority after the penalty portion was avoided. The District Court affirmed this decision, holding that the bankruptcy court had the authority to apply the pro rata method under its equitable powers in 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), and that this method was not inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's order. The Ninth Circuit held that the pro rata method was inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code. The court found that the pro rata method improperly reduced the value of the unavoidable tax portion of the lien and disturbed the Code’s order of priorities. The court emphasized that the Bankruptcy Code prioritizes tax claims over penalty claims and that the pro rata method violated the express limitations of 11 U.S.C. §§ 724(a) and 551.The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to further remand to the Bankruptcy Court to determine the final allocation amounts using a tax-first method. This method requires that the sale proceeds first pay the unavoidable tax portion of the lien before any payment to the Estate for the avoided penalty portion. View "IN RE: USA V. MACKENZIE" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, including Vicente Topasna Borja, challenged the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) and Hawaii’s Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act (UMOVA). Borja, a former Hawaii resident now living in Guam, argued that these laws violate equal protection by allowing former Hawaii residents who move abroad or to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) to vote absentee in Hawaii’s federal elections, while those who move to other U.S. Territories cannot.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the enforcement of UOCAVA but granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the plaintiffs did not have a fundamental right to vote in Hawaii’s federal elections and that those who move from a state to a territory are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Therefore, the court applied rational basis review and concluded that UOCAVA and UMOVA satisfied this standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that rational basis review, not strict scrutiny, applies to UOCAVA and UMOVA’s overseas voting provisions. The court reasoned that these laws do not deprive residents within a geographically defined governmental unit from voting in a unit-wide election nor dilute the voting power of qualified voters within Hawaii. The court found that the differential treatment of former Hawaii residents who move to other U.S. Territories versus those who move abroad or to the CNMI is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests. The court also rejected the argument that individuals who move from Hawaii to other U.S. Territories constitute a suspect or quasi-suspect class warranting heightened scrutiny.The Ninth Circuit concluded that UOCAVA and UMOVA’s classifications satisfy rational basis review and affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants. View "BORJA V. NAGO" on Justia Law

A group of LGBTQ+ students sued the U.S. Department of Education, alleging that they experienced discrimination at religious colleges and universities that receive federal funding. They challenged the religious exemption to Title IX, which allows religious institutions to discriminate based on gender if it conflicts with their religious tenets. The plaintiffs claimed this exemption violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee. They also argued that the Department's 2020 amendment to Title IX regulations, which clarified that institutions do not need to submit a written statement to claim the exemption, was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. It ruled that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim that the religious exemption violated the First and Fifth Amendments. The court also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the 2020 amendment under the APA. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, concluding that any amendment would be futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the Title IX religious exemption does not violate the Establishment Clause under the historical practices and understanding test set forth in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. The court found that the exemption is consistent with a long history of religious accommodations in U.S. law. The court also held that the exemption does not violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee, as it is substantially related to the important governmental objective of accommodating religious exercise. Finally, the court agreed that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the 2020 amendment, as they did not show that the rule caused them harm. The court also upheld the denial of leave to amend the complaint. View "HUNTER V. USEDU" on Justia Law