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

A California jury sentenced Petitioner to death for a 1988 murder. The California Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal, and the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. This appeal arose from the district court’s decision granting penalty phase relief on Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The State appealed that decision, and Petitioner cross-appealed the denial of guilt phase relief.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of habeas relief on Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase and affirmed the district court’s denial of relief on claims at the guilt phase. Reviewing under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(d), the panel held in the government’s appeal that the California Supreme Court unreasonably applied the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), in evaluating Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance at the penalty phase. The panel concluded that had the three categories of evidence that counsel should have discovered been presented to the jury, there is a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have voted against the death penalty. The panel did not need to reach whether the denial of relief on Petitioner’s penalty-phase claim that he was deprived of due process by the State’s presentation of false evidence violated 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(d). On Petitioner’s cross-appeal from the denial of relief at the guilt phase, the panel held that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), and its progeny in upholding the admission of Petitioner’s confession. View "TAUNO WAIDLA V. RON DAVIS" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, was indicted for illegally reentering the United States following prior removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1326. He successfully moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that Section 1326 violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and is, therefore, facially invalid.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court wrote that Defendant did not carry his burden of proving that Section 1326 was enacted with the intent to be discriminatory towards Mexicans and other Central and South Americans. The court held that the district court erred factually and legally in holding otherwise. Further, the court reasoned that Defendant’s equal protection challenge fails even under the usual test for assessing such claims set forth in Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977), the panel declined to address whether immigration laws should be evaluated through a more deferential framework. As drafted, Section 1326 is facially neutral as to race. The panel, therefore, turned to the question of whether Defendant carried his burden of showing that racial discrimination was a motivating factor in enacting Section 1326. The panel disagreed with Defendant’s argument that a Senate Report, the basis for the 1952 legislation, is replete with racism. The panel held that the district court clearly erred when it relied on Congress’s decision to override President Truman’s veto of the INA as evidence that Section 1326 was enacted in part by discriminatory animus. View "USA V. GUSTAVO CARRILLO-LOPEZ" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for attempted illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1326. He contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss his information for violations of the Speedy Trial Act.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in excluding periods of delay resulting from ends-of-justice continuances granted due to events caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic. The panel concluded that the district court complied with the applicable statutory requirements. First, the district court’s finding that the ends of justice were best served by granting continuances during the period from August 14, 2020, until December 1, 2020, was timely because the district court put this finding on the record during the July 12, 2021, hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss under 18 U.S.C. Section 3162(a)(2). The continuances were also specifically limited in time to successive 30-day periods. Next, the district court made the requisite findings under Section 3161(h)(7)(A). The panel rejected Defendant’s argument that the district court erred by not dismissing his information on the ground that 8 U.S.C. Section 1326 violates the Equal Protection Clause. View "USA V. ARMANDO OROZCO-BARRON" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was cited for misuse of a vehicle horn under Section 27001 after she honked in support of protestors gathered outside a government official’s office. Although the citation was dismissed, Plaintiff filed suit to block future enforcement of 27001 against any expressive horn use―including honks not only to “support candidates or causes” but also to “greet friends or neighbors, summon children or co-workers, or celebrate weddings or victories.” She asserted that Section 27001 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments as a content-based regulation that is not narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. Alternatively, she argued that even if the law is not content-based, it burdens substantially more speech than necessary to protect legitimate government interests.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the State of California. The first held that Plaintiff had standing to challenge the law because, ever since she received a citation for impermissible horn use, she has refrained from honking in support of political protests to avoid being cited again. The panel determined that, at least in some circumstances, a honk can carry a message that is intended to be communicative and that, in context, would reasonably be understood by the listener to be communicative. The panel noted that Plaintiff had not alleged that the State has a policy or practice of improper selective enforcement of Section 27001, so the panel had no occasion to address that possibility here. View "SUSAN PORTER V. KELLY MARTINEZ, ET AL" on Justia Law

In an action brought by the Cassirer family under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, seeking the return of a Pissarro painting stolen by the Nazis and now in the possession of Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation (TBC), an entity created and controlled by the Kingdom of Spain, the Ninth Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court the following question concerning the third step in California’s governmental interest choice-of-law test: Whether, under a comparative impairment analysis, California’s or Spain’s interest is more impaired if California’s rule that a person may not acquire title to a stolen item of personal property (because a thief cannot pass good title, and California has not adopted the doctrine of adverse possession for personal property), were subordinated to Spain’s rule that a person may obtain title to stolen property by adverse possession.   Applying the first step of California’s governmental interest test, the panel concluded that the issue in question was a question of personal property law: whether TBC or the Cassirers own the painting; and the relevant law of the two jurisdictions of Spain and California was different. Applying the second step of the test, the panel concluded that a true conflict existed between Spanish and California law, meaning that each jurisdiction had a legitimate interest in the application of its law and policy. The third step of the test required application of the law of the jurisdiction whose interest would be more impaired if its law were not applied. View "DAVID CASSIRER, ET AL V. THYSSEN-BORNEMISZA COLLECTION" on Justia Law

The Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (“FSHCAA”) provides that health centers receiving funding under Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (“PHSA”) may be deemed Public Health Service (“PHS”) employees. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated their duty to report a court-ordered Lane County Mental Health patient’s refusal to comply with the terms of his probation. Plaintiffs alleged they were injured as a result of Defendants’ failure to report a patient’s repeated failures to comply with his mental health treatment plan. Defendants contended that they were entitled to Section 233 immunity. The district court held that Section 233 immunity did not apply to Defendants and remanded to state court.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order remanding to state court Plaintiffs’ action alleging negligence and wrongful death claims against federally funded community health centers and their employees (“Defendants”), and remanded to the district court to enter an order substituting the United States as the defendant and deeming the action as one brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The panel first addressed whether there was jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order. Ordinarily, a remand order is not reviewable on appeal, except for cases removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442. The panel agreed with Defendants that Section 233 immunity did not turn on who brings the claim, but rather on whether the conduct giving rose to the claim arose out of the Defendants’ performance of “medical, surgical, dental or related functions.” View "SAM FRIEDENBERG, ET AL V. LANE COUNTY, ET AL" on Justia Law

In this case, multiple defendants alleged that one Assistant U.S. Attorney engaged in potential professional misconduct. Rather than screening out the accused Assistant U.S. Attorney, the district court disqualified all 180 federal prosecutors from the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office from defending against the misconduct allegations. The district court then ordered the Department of Justice to supply an attorney from outside Arizona to litigate Defendants’ motions.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order disqualifying the entire District of Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office and directing the Department of Justice to supply an attorney from outside Arizona to represent the government in pending motions. The panel held that the district court’s sweeping disqualification order was an abuse of discretion. The panel wrote that based on separation-of-powers principles and the consensus among courts, disqualification of an entire U.S. Attorney’s Office is an extreme remedy—only appropriate in the most extraordinary circumstances. e panel held that the record does not support an officewide disqualification, and without any evidence of officewide involvement, it was pure speculation to conclude that any conflict or misconduct pervaded the entire U.S. Attorney’s Office. The panel also held that no clear violation of law or ethics supports an officewide disqualification. The panel wrote that the district court—whose decision to disqualify was informed, in part, by a comparison to an internal investigation of a private company—does not appear to have sufficiently appreciated the separation-of-powers concern. View "USA V. DAVID WILLIAMS, ET AL" on Justia Law

The United States sued several heirs of A.P., alleging that they were trustees of the trust or received estate property as transferees or beneficiaries and were thus personally liable for estate taxes under 26 U.S.C. Section 6324(a)(2). The United States also alleged that two of the heirs were liable for estate taxes under California state law. The district court ruled in favor of Defendants on the Tax Code claims and in favor of the United States on the state law claims.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendants, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the government on its claims for estate taxes and to conduct any further proceedings necessary to determine the amount of each defendant’s liability for unpaid taxes. The panel held that Section 6324(a)(2) imposes personal liability for unpaid estate taxes on the categories of persons listed in the statute who have or receive estate property, either on the date of the decedent’s death or at any time thereafter (as opposed to only on the date of death), subject to the applicable statute of limitations. The panel next held that Defendants were within the categories of persons listed in Section 6324(a) when they had or received estate property and are thus liable for the unpaid estate taxes as trustees and beneficiaries. The panel further held that each Defendant’s liability cannot exceed the value of the estate property at the time of the decedent’s death or the value of that property at the time they received or had it as trustees and beneficiaries. View "USA V. JAMES D. PAULSON, ET AL" on Justia Law

Relying on the vocational expert (“VE”)’s testimony, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found that there were a significant number of jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform, and, therefore, Plaintiff was not disabled. Plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter to the Appeals Council asking it to review the ALJ’s finding that there were a significant number of jobs in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. The Appeals Council made the attorney’s letter and a six-page attachment part of the record and denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s disability determination because it “found no reason under [the] rules to review the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.” On appeal, Plaintiff challenged only the ALJ’s conclusion that there were a significant number of jobs in the national economy that a person with Plaintiff’s limitations, age, education, and experience could perform.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial. The panel held that to determine whether the ALJ had a duty to address a conflict in job-number evidence (and failed to discharge that duty), it considers on a case-by-case “meritless or immaterial” or has “significant probative value.” Because Plaintiff did not present his job-number evidence to the ALJ during or after the hearing, the ALJ did not have any occasion to address the purported inconsistency between the VE’s estimates and Plaintiff’s contrary estimates. The panel held that the letter by Plaintiff’s counsel and the six pages of printouts together provided no basis to conclude that these results qualified as significant and probative evidence. View "JAMES WISCHMANN V. KILOLO KIJAKAZI" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the current owner of environmentally contaminated real property, brought CERCLA cost recovery claims against the Estates of Norma and Edgar Beard and Etch-Tek, Inc. Mayhew Center, LLC, had purchased the property from the Beards. Walnut Creek Manor, LLC, owner and operator of a retirement community adjacent to the property, sued Mayhew. The district court concluded that Mayhew’s property was the source of the tetrachloroethylene, or PCE, found on Walnut Creek Manor’s site and held Mayhew liable under CERCLA and the California Hazardous Substance Account Act for any future response costs. Mayhew sued Norma Beard, asserting cost recovery and contribution claims under CERCLA and other claims seeking to hold her liable for the judgment against it in the Walnut Creek Manor action and the contamination on both properties. The district court consolidated the two actions, and the parties settled. Mayhew defaulted on its mortgage, and the property was placed in a state court receivership. The district court concluded that the claims against the Beard Estates and Etch-Tek were barred by claim preclusion.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal, as barred by claim preclusion, of claims brought under the CERCLA and remanded for further proceedings. The panel concluded that the Mayhew/Beard action ended in a final judgment on the merits. As to the identity of claims, however, the panel concluded that claim preclusion did not apply. Mayhew’s CERCLA claim, which sought apportionment of the liability stemming from the Walnut Creek Manor action, was distinct from GP Vincent’s CERCLA claim, which sought reimbursement for costs incurred in connection with the remediation of GP Vincent’s property’s own contamination. View "GP VINCENT II V. THE ESTATE OF EDGAR BEARD, ET AL" on Justia Law