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

Residents of Humboldt County filed a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the County’s system of administrative penalties and fees for cannabis abatement violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The County Code imposes daily fines of $6,000 to $10,000 for illegal cannabis cultivation. Plaintiffs claimed that the County charges landowners based on imprecise data or previous owners' conduct, causing emotional distress and financial burdens due to ongoing penalties and abatement costs.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case, concluding that plaintiffs lacked standing as they had not paid any fines, rendering the Eighth Amendment claim unripe. The court also found both facial and as-applied challenges untimely, reasoning that the statute of limitations began when the ordinance was enacted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that plaintiffs’ claim under the Excessive Fines Clause was constitutionally ripe and that they had standing due to the imposition of penalties causing concrete injuries, including emotional distress and financial expenses. The court also found that prudential ripeness considerations supported allowing the litigation to proceed. The court determined that the statute of limitations for facial challenges begins when plaintiffs know of the actual injury, not when the ordinance is enacted. Thus, some plaintiffs’ facial challenges were timely. The court also found that several plaintiffs had timely as-applied challenges, except for Cyro Glad, whose claim was untimely.On the merits, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause, as the penalties and demolition orders were punitive and potentially excessive. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim and remanded for further proceedings, affirming the dismissal only for Cyro Glad’s as-applied claim. View "THOMAS V. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT" on Justia Law

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. ("LegalForce USA"), a California S corporation operating legal services websites, sued LegalForce, Inc. ("LegalForce Japan"), a Japanese corporation providing legal software services, for trademark infringement. LegalForce USA alleged that LegalForce Japan's U.S. expansion plans, website ownership, and advertising and selling of equity infringed its trademark. The district court dismissed the website claims for lack of jurisdiction and the expansion plan claims as unripe. The claims concerning equity were dismissed for failure to state a claim.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed all claims except those related to the advertising and selling of equity. The court held that it had jurisdiction over these claims but dismissed them for failure to state a claim, reasoning that advertising and selling equity is not connected to the sale of goods or services and thus cannot constitute trademark infringement. The court also found that LegalForce USA failed to justify an extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that using a trademark in connection with the sale of equity does not constitute using the mark in connection with "goods or services" under the Lanham Act. The court also affirmed that LegalForce Japan's services in Japan could not satisfy the "in connection with" goods or services requirement under the Lanham Act, as the relevant conduct occurred outside U.S. territory. The court concluded that the Lanham Act does not apply extraterritorially in this context. View "LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE, PC V. LEGALFORCE, INC." on Justia Law

Krish Singh was shot and seriously injured by Officer Brittany Smith-Petersen in Phoenix, Arizona. Smith-Petersen and another officer, Annie Batway, responded to a report of an attempted robbery with a knife. Upon arrival, Singh held a knife to his own neck and asked the officers to shoot him. Despite commands to drop the knife, Singh did not comply, and Smith-Petersen shot him. Singh sued the City of Phoenix, Smith-Petersen, and Batway, alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law claims.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of Smith-Petersen on the § 1983 claim, holding that she was protected by qualified immunity. The court found that although a reasonable jury could find a constitutional violation, there was no clearly established law indicating that her use of force was objectively unreasonable. The district court remanded the state law claims to state court for resolution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, holding that the case of Glenn v. Washington County, which involved similar facts, provided clearly established law that should have put Smith-Petersen on notice that her use of deadly force was potentially unreasonable. The Ninth Circuit also reversed the district court’s order remanding the state law claims and remanded for reconsideration of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. The court dismissed Smith-Petersen’s cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as it challenged the district court’s determination of genuine factual disputes, which is not reviewable on appeal. View "SINGH V. CITY OF PHOENIX" on Justia Law

Joshua Shuemake, a correctional officer, was prohibited from possessing firearms due to a no-contact order following an alleged assault on his former girlfriend. Despite this, he borrowed a handgun from his friend and co-worker, Luke Ulavale, to continue his private security job. The FBI, suspecting non-compliance with the order, searched Shuemake's residence and found two firearms, one of which was registered to Ulavale and had Shuemake's DNA on it. Ulavale initially lied to the FBI, claiming another friend had the gun, but later admitted under oath that he lent it to Shuemake and that they concocted a false story.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington admitted Ulavale's grand jury testimony after he claimed memory loss at trial. Shuemake was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and obstruction of justice. He appealed, arguing that the district court erred in admitting Ulavale's grand jury testimony.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that under the prior inconsistent statement rule, Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A), a district court can admit an earlier sworn statement if a witness on the stand contradicts that statement. The court found that dubious claims of memory loss, as shown by inexplicable claims of faulty memory or evasive testimony, may be treated as inconsistencies under Rule 801(d)(1)(A). The court concluded that Ulavale's feigned memory loss made Rule 801(d)(1)(A) applicable and affirmed Shuemake's conviction for obstruction of justice. View "USA V. SHUEMAKE" on Justia Law

Lucila Magana-Magana, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States unlawfully in 1995. She faced a series of abusive relationships, including with Rafael Camacho and later Clyde Wakefield, whom she married in 2017. Wakefield's abuse led to their separation and eventual divorce. In 2007, Magana-Magana was arrested by U.S. Border Patrol, and the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. She applied for cancellation of removal, citing hardship to her U.S. citizen children, but her request was denied by an immigration judge (IJ) and later by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Her appeal to the Ninth Circuit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.In January 2022, Magana-Magana filed a motion with the BIA to reopen her removal proceedings, citing new evidence of abuse by Wakefield and her application for benefits under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The BIA denied her motion, stating it was untimely and that she had not demonstrated "extraordinary circumstances" to waive the one-year filing deadline.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded it had jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination of "extraordinary circumstances" under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III), as it involved applying a legal standard to undisputed facts. The court found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the abuse suffered by Magana-Magana did not constitute "extraordinary circumstances" and that there was no basis to conclude that such circumstances caused the delay in filing her motion. The court also rejected her other arguments, including her unexhausted equitable-tolling claim and the BIA's discretionary decision not to reopen the case sua sponte. The petition for review was denied in part and dismissed in part. View "MAGANA-MAGANA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, arrived in the United States without documentation in May 2013 and sought asylum, claiming persecution due to his political opinions and association with the Mann Party. An immigration judge (IJ) found inconsistencies in Singh's testimony regarding his political affiliations and the circumstances of his father's death, leading to an adverse credibility determination. Consequently, the IJ denied Singh's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, and the Ninth Circuit denied Singh's petition for review.In July 2021, Singh filed a motion to reopen his case, citing new fears of persecution due to India's passage of agricultural reform laws. He claimed eligibility for relief based on his religion as a Sikh, his membership in a particular social group of farmers, and his political opinions opposing the new laws. Singh submitted new evidence, including a sworn statement detailing threats and assaults against his family by the police and members of the BJP Party, medical records, photos of protests, land ownership papers, and news articles about the persecution of farmers and Sikhs.The BIA denied Singh's motion to reopen, concluding that the new evidence was immaterial due to the prior adverse credibility determination. The BIA found that Singh's new affidavit and documentary evidence did not sufficiently establish an individualized risk of persecution or torture.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the BIA improperly relied on the prior adverse credibility determination to discredit Singh's new evidence. The court held that the BIA must credit evidence supporting a motion to reopen unless the facts asserted are inherently unbelievable. The Ninth Circuit granted Singh's petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the BIA to address Singh's new factual assertions independently of the prior adverse credibility finding. View "SINGH V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

A California corporation, China Unicom (Americas) Operations Limited (CUA), was authorized to provide domestic and international telecommunications services under certificates issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pursuant to § 214 of the Communications Act of 1934. In 2020, the FCC ordered CUA to show cause why its certificates should not be revoked due to national security concerns related to its Chinese government ownership. CUA responded, but the FCC found the responses inadequate and initiated revocation proceedings.The FCC's International, Wireline Competition, and Enforcement Bureaus issued an order to show cause, citing national security concerns and CUA's lack of candor. CUA argued against the revocation, claiming the FCC lacked authority and that it was entitled to a formal hearing. The FCC, however, found CUA's responses insufficient and proceeded with revocation based on national security risks and CUA's lack of trustworthiness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the FCC has the authority to revoke § 214 certificates based on national security concerns and that the FCC's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court found that CUA's ultimate Chinese government ownership and the overlap of its board members with the Chinese Communist Party posed significant national security risks. Additionally, the court upheld the FCC's finding that CUA demonstrated a lack of candor and trustworthiness in its dealings with the FCC.The court also rejected CUA's procedural arguments, concluding that the FCC followed appropriate procedures and that a formal evidentiary hearing was not required. The Ninth Circuit denied CUA's petition for review, affirming the FCC's revocation of CUA's § 214 certificates. View "CHINA UNICOM (AMERICAS) OPERA V. FCC" on Justia Law

Steven Catlin, a California state prisoner, appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his 1990 conviction for the murders of his fourth wife, Joyce Catlin, and his adoptive mother, Martha Catlin, as well as his death sentence. Catlin was convicted of murdering three family members with paraquat, a poisonous herbicide. The habeas petition in this case relates to his convictions for the murders of Joyce and Martha and the death sentence for Martha’s murder.The California Supreme Court (CSC) summarily denied Catlin’s first state habeas petition on the merits in 2007 and rejected his second state habeas petition in 2013 as procedurally barred. The district court denied Catlin’s federal habeas petition and his motion for discovery and evidentiary development in 2019, granting a certificate of appealability on several claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed Catlin’s claims under the deferential standard set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Catlin’s habeas petition, concluding that the CSC reasonably rejected Catlin’s claims. The court held that the CSC acted reasonably in rejecting Catlin’s claims of error arising from the state trial judge’s ex parte discussion with a juror, concluding that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel at both the guilt and penalty phases of Catlin’s trial, and determining that there was no violation of due process rights under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois.The Ninth Circuit also declined to issue a certificate of appealability for Catlin’s uncertified claim that the state violated his due process rights by withholding exculpatory evidence and presenting false evidence. The court found that no reasonable jurist could debate the district court’s resolution of this claim. View "CATLIN V. BROOMFIELD" on Justia Law

Vitaliy Chmukh, a native and citizen of Ukraine, came to the United States as a refugee in 2001. In 2017, he was involved in using a stolen vehicle to steal packages from porches, leading to his arrest. He pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen vehicle under RCW § 9A.56.068 and possession of heroin under RCW § 69.50.4013. He was sentenced to 43 months for the stolen vehicle charge and 24 months for the controlled substance charge, serving 38 months in total.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged Chmukh with removability based on these convictions, alleging that the stolen vehicle conviction was an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) and that the controlled substance conviction violated the Controlled Substances Act. An immigration judge (IJ) found him removable and denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ determined that the stolen vehicle conviction was an aggravated felony and a particularly serious crime, making him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that Chmukh’s conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle was an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) because it matched the generic federal offense of possession of stolen property, requiring possession, actual knowledge that the property was stolen, and intent to deprive the owner of the property. The court also found that the conviction was a particularly serious crime, barring withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B). The court rejected Chmukh’s arguments that the statute was overbroad and that the agency erred in its analysis. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit denied Chmukh’s petition for review. View "CHMUKH V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Andrew Nisbet petitioned for the return of his two young children to Scotland under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The children had been taken to the United States by their mother, Spirit Bridger, in June 2022. Nisbet argued that the children were habitual residents of Scotland and that Bridger had wrongfully removed them.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon, after a bench trial, denied Nisbet's petition. The court found that Nisbet failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were habitual residents of Scotland. The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the children's lack of meaningful relationships in Scotland, Bridger's credible testimony that she never intended for Scotland to be a permanent home, and her lack of ties to Scotland.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in its findings. The court emphasized that the district court properly considered the children's lack of meaningful connections in Scotland and Bridger's intentions and circumstances as the sole caregiving parent. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the children did not have a habitual residence in Scotland under the Hague Convention, and therefore, Bridger did not wrongfully remove them. View "Nisbet v. Bridger" on Justia Law