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

After failing to pay property taxes on her home in Maricopa County, Arizona, the plaintiff’s tax liens were sold to a private entity, which later foreclosed on the property. The plaintiff did not respond to the foreclosure action, resulting in a default judgment that extinguished her rights to the property. The property was then deeded to the private purchaser, who transferred it to another private party. The plaintiff subsequently challenged the foreclosure, the retention of surplus equity from the sale, and the constitutionality of the Arizona statute that allowed private parties to enforce tax liens without providing just compensation.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, finding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s injuries stemmed from the state court’s foreclosure judgment, which had already extinguished her property rights, and thus her federal claims amounted to an impermissible appeal of a state court decision. The court also dismissed her state law claims, except for one over which it declined supplemental jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Ninth Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims that directly attacked the state court foreclosure judgment, such as those alleging the foreclosure was an unconstitutional taking or excessive fine. However, the court held that claims challenging the defendants’ post-judgment retention of surplus equity were not barred, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, which recognized a property owner’s right to excess equity after a tax foreclosure. The court also found that the plaintiff’s facial challenge to the statute was not barred by Rooker-Feldman but was moot due to legislative amendments. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the surviving claims. View "SEARLE V. ALLEN" on Justia Law

Paul Schwartz, while incarcerated at a federal correctional facility in Tucson, alleged that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs over an eighteen-month period. He experienced a range of severe symptoms, including tachycardia, blood in his urine, and significant thyroid dysfunction, but claimed he received inadequate and delayed medical care despite repeated attempts to seek help. Schwartz specifically alleged that a mid-level practitioner, Ms. Tatad, refused to provide treatment or access to a physician and instructed others to deny him care. He also claimed that the warden and associate warden ignored his efforts to alert them to his condition, resulting in irreversible kidney injury and other long-term health risks.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona initially dismissed several defendants and later granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part, allowing Schwartz’s claim against Tatad to proceed. After remand, the district court denied Schwartz’s motion to amend his complaint, then later granted Tatad’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) constituted a special factor that placed Schwartz’s claim in a new Bivens context, foreclosing a damages remedy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that Schwartz’s claim was not meaningfully different from the Supreme Court’s decision in Carlson v. Green, which recognized a Bivens remedy for Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court found that neither the PLRA, the Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program, nor the factual specifics of Schwartz’s case created a new Bivens context. The court also held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Schwartz leave to amend his complaint. View "SCHWARTZ V. MILLER" on Justia Law

After purchasing a collectible from an online retailer, the plaintiff was charged multiple times through his PayPal account for additional items he alleges he did not knowingly subscribe to. He filed a putative class action in California state court against the retailer, asserting claims under California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law. Importantly, he sought only equitable restitution and did not pursue damages, even though he conceded that damages were available under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.The defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act, which was not disputed as a proper basis for federal jurisdiction. The plaintiff then moved to remand, arguing that the federal court lacked “equitable jurisdiction” because he had an adequate remedy at law available, even though he chose not to pursue it. The district court agreed, holding that it could remand for lack of equitable jurisdiction and that the defendant could not waive the defense that an adequate legal remedy was available.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that district courts do have the authority to remand a removed case to state court for lack of equitable jurisdiction. However, the Ninth Circuit further held that a defendant may waive the adequate-remedy-at-law defense in order to keep the case in federal court. The court vacated the district court’s remand order and sent the case back to allow the defendant the opportunity to perfect its waiver. If the defendant waives the defense, the case may proceed in federal court. View "RUIZ V. THE BRADFORD EXCHANGE, LTD." on Justia Law

A family leased a home within military housing at the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado in California. Shortly after moving in, they experienced persistent water intrusion and mold contamination, which they alleged damaged their property and affected their health. The family reported these issues to the property manager and the public-private entity responsible for the housing, but claimed that remediation efforts were inadequate and that their concerns were dismissed. After further testing confirmed hazardous mold, the family vacated the property and brought state law claims, including negligence and breach of contract, against the property manager, the public-private housing entity, and a mold remediation company.The defendants removed the case from California state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, asserting federal enclave, federal officer, and federal agency jurisdiction. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on derivative sovereign immunity and, after further proceedings, found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction on all asserted grounds. Specifically, the court determined there was no evidence that the United States had accepted exclusive jurisdiction over the property, that the defendants failed to show a causal nexus between their actions and federal direction, and that the public-private entity was not a federal agency. The district court remanded the case to state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the remand order under an exception allowing appellate review when federal officer removal is asserted. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court correctly found no federal enclave jurisdiction because there was no evidence of federal acceptance of exclusive jurisdiction over the property. The court also held that the defendants did not meet the requirements for federal officer or agency jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s remand to state court. View "CHILDS V. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC" on Justia Law

Gladys Perez was convicted in Nevada state court of first-degree murder, child neglect, and child abuse, and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. After her conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Nevada and became final in May 2012, Perez filed a state post-conviction habeas petition, which tolled the federal one-year limitations period under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Her state petition was denied in December 2013, and Perez repeatedly instructed her court-appointed attorney, Bret Whipple, to file an appeal. Whipple failed to communicate with Perez or file the appeal, and did not provide her with the necessary case documents. After months of unsuccessful attempts to contact Whipple, Perez began preparing a federal habeas petition on her own, facing additional obstacles such as limited access to the prison law library, incomplete case files, and delays in obtaining a required financial certificate from prison officials.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed Perez’s federal habeas petition as untimely, finding that she had not demonstrated the extraordinary circumstances or reasonable diligence required for equitable tolling under AEDPA. The district court concluded that Perez’s efforts to contact her attorney and prepare her petition were insufficient to excuse her late filing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that Perez’s abandonment by her post-conviction counsel constituted an extraordinary circumstance that prevented her timely filing, and that she acted with reasonable diligence both before and after the abandonment. The court also found that delays by prison officials in processing her financial certificate further contributed to her late filing. The panel concluded that Perez qualified for equitable tolling and remanded the case for consideration of the merits of her habeas petition. View "PEREZ V. REUBART" on Justia Law

A Cuban national fled his home country after enduring years of persecution and briefly stayed in Mexico, where he also faced threats and extortion. Upon entering the United States, he sought asylum, describing his fears of returning to both Cuba and Mexico. An Immigration Judge granted him withholding of removal to Cuba, but did not designate Mexico or any other country as an alternative for removal. Neither party appealed this decision, making it final. Despite this, federal immigration officials removed him to Mexico, where he was threatened by gang members. He returned to the United States two days later, was detained, and was ultimately granted asylum.After these events, the individual filed a lawsuit for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging that his removal to Mexico was improper and caused him harm. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, relying on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g), which restrict judicial review of certain immigration actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) did not bar the lawsuit because the plaintiff’s claims challenged the legal authority and process of his removal to Mexico, not the discretionary decision to execute a removal order. The court found that the claims were based on actions taken after the conclusion of removal proceedings and were not subject to the exclusive petition-for-review process. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the Federal Tort Claims Act suit and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "IBARRA-PEREZ V. USA" on Justia Law

A university revoked a student’s bachelor’s degree in social work after being informed by a state agency that, during her internship, she accessed confidential information in a state database without authorization. The university retroactively changed her grade for the internship course to failing, notified her that her degree and diploma were invalid, and initiated disciplinary proceedings. The student, who had already graduated and obtained a social work license, challenged the university’s actions, arguing that her procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the student’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that she did not have a protected property interest in her degree, grade, or the disciplinary process, and that, even if such an interest existed, the university provided adequate process. The court also concluded that she failed to plausibly allege that she was unable to pursue a career in social work, and held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because any rights at issue were not clearly established.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the student’s university degree is a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and that the university failed to provide adequate process before revoking it. Specifically, the court found that the student plausibly alleged she was denied sufficient time to present her defense and was not allowed to cross-examine university-affiliated witnesses at her conduct hearing. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the procedural due process claim on these grounds and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the dismissal of the substantive due process claim and the grant of qualified immunity to the defendants for monetary relief. The appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction was dismissed as moot. View "DUDLEY V. BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY" on Justia Law

Environmental organizations challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the Big Weekly Elk Forest Management Project in coastal Oregon, arguing that the project would harm the threatened marbled murrelet by allowing logging near its nesting habitat. The relevant Resource Management Plan (RMP) designates certain forest areas as Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) to protect murrelet and northern spotted owl habitat, and includes management directions for murrelet conservation. The project authorized thinning in LSRs adjacent to murrelet habitat and heavier harvesting in areas designated for timber production, with some voluntary protective measures.The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs argued that the project violated the RMP and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) by failing to buffer all occupied murrelet sites and by not requiring surveys for murrelets in adjacent stands. They also claimed the Bureau failed to take a “hard look” at environmental impacts as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The district court granted summary judgment for the Bureau, finding its interpretation of the RMP reasonable and entitled to deference, and that its environmental review was sufficient.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the Bureau’s narrow interpretation of “modifying nesting habitat” in the RMP was reasonable, genuinely ambiguous, and entitled to deference under Kisor v. Wilkie. The project conformed to the RMP and did not violate FLPMA. The court also found that the Bureau took the required “hard look” at environmental impacts under NEPA, adequately addressing potential effects on murrelets through tiered and incorporated analyses. The district court’s judgment in favor of the Bureau was affirmed. View "CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT" on Justia Law

A musician and songwriter alleged that another composer copied his liturgical song, “Emmanuel,” in creating her own work, “Christ Be Our Light.” The plaintiff had published and performed “Emmanuel” widely in the 1980s and early 1990s, including at conventions attended by both the defendant and her publisher. The defendant, a British musician, composed “Christ Be Our Light” in 1993, and her publisher had received copies of “Emmanuel” from the plaintiff in the mid-1980s. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had access to his work through these conventions, widespread dissemination, and her relationship with her publisher.The plaintiff initially filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana, but after a procedural dismissal and re-filing, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. During discovery, the plaintiff disclosed, after the deadline, letters from the publisher acknowledging receipt of “Emmanuel.” The district court, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation, excluded these letters and the related access theory as a sanction for late disclosure, finding the failure to disclose was neither substantially justified nor harmless. The court then granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that, without the excluded evidence, the plaintiff could not show access or striking similarity, and thus could not proceed with his copyright claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of the late-disclosed evidence and the related access theory, holding that the discovery sanction was not claim-dispositive and was within the district court’s discretion. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that, even without the excluded evidence, there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant had access to “Emmanuel” and whether the two works were substantially or strikingly similar. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "AMBROSETTI V. OREGON CATHOLIC PRESS" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was shot five times in his apartment parking lot and, in the chaos, dropped his black iPhone and a satchel. His girlfriend took the satchel but left the phone, which was later recovered by police near some shrubs. The police also seized a different (white) iPhone from the defendant at the hospital. The black iPhone remained in police evidence for over two years, until it became relevant in a separate federal drug investigation. The government ultimately used data from the black iPhone, along with other evidence, to charge the defendant with drug trafficking, firearm offenses, and money laundering.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon presided over the trial. Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence from the black iPhone, arguing that he retained a privacy interest in the device and its data, and also sought recusal of the district judge due to her prior service as U.S. Attorney when he was prosecuted for unrelated charges over fifteen years earlier. The district court denied both motions, finding that the defendant had abandoned the black iPhone and thus lacked standing to challenge its search, and that recusal was not warranted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s finding that the defendant had abandoned his privacy interest in the black iPhone, holding that the circumstances—dropping the phone while fleeing after being shot—did not show intent to abandon the device or its data. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the suppression motion because federal agents obtained a warrant and searched the phone within a reasonable period. The court also affirmed the denial of the recusal motion, concluding that a reasonable person would not question the judge’s impartiality under these facts. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "USA V. HUNT" on Justia Law