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

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

Michael Brown, a taxpayer, requested a collection due process hearing regarding a notice of tax lien on his property for unpaid taxes. He submitted an offer-in-compromise to settle his tax liability, which was referred to the IRS Collection Division for investigation. The Collection Division returned Brown's offer within seven months, deeming it nonprocessable. Over two years later, the Office of Appeals sustained the notice of tax lien.Brown petitioned the United States Tax Court, arguing that his offer-in-compromise should be deemed accepted by law under 26 U.S.C. § 7122(f) because the Office of Appeals did not issue a final determination within 24 months. The Tax Court rejected this argument, ruling that the Collection Division's return of the offer within the 24-month period constituted a rejection, thus stopping the clock on the 24-month deadline.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Tax Court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the Collection Division's return of Brown's offer-in-compromise within seven months was a valid rejection under § 7122(f), regardless of the ongoing collection due process hearing. The court clarified that the 24-month period for the IRS to act on an offer-in-compromise is terminated by the Collection Division's return of the offer, not by the Office of Appeals' final determination. Therefore, Brown's offer was not deemed accepted by operation of law. View "BROWN V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE" on Justia Law

Mendocino Railway, a California corporation, owns and operates a railroad line known as the "Skunk Train" between Fort Bragg and Willits, California. The City of Fort Bragg and the California Coastal Commission sought to regulate the use and maintenance of the Railway's properties within the City, which the Railway resisted, claiming federal preemption under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA). The City filed a state court action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the Railway to comply with local regulations. The Railway argued that federal law preempted these local regulations. Subsequently, the Railway filed a federal lawsuit seeking a declaration that the City's and Commission's regulatory actions were preempted by federal law and an injunction to prevent interference with its operations.The Mendocino County Superior Court overruled the Railway's demurrer, which argued that federal law preempted all local regulations. The Railway's subsequent petitions to the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court were unsuccessful. The Railway then filed an answer in the state court, asserting federal preemption as an affirmative defense. Meanwhile, the Commission intervened in the state court action, seeking a declaration that the Coastal Act and local coastal program applied to the Railway's activities and were not preempted by federal law. The Railway also attempted to remove the state action to federal court, but the district court remanded it back to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's dismissal of the Railway's federal lawsuit under the Colorado River doctrine, which allows federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in favor of parallel state court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that the state court proceedings were sufficiently parallel to the federal action and that considerations of avoiding piecemeal litigation, forum shopping, and the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction supported the dismissal. The court held that the state court could adequately protect the Railway's rights and that the federal preemption issue could be resolved in the state court proceedings. View "MENDOCINO RAILWAY V. AINSWORTH" on Justia Law

Oswaldo Favio Dominguez Ojeda, a native and citizen of Peru, faced reinstatement of a prior removal order by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2023. He expressed fear of returning to Peru, citing multiple incidents of harm and threats from members of the political group Peru Libre. An asylum officer conducted a reasonable fear screening interview but determined that Dominguez Ojeda did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. Dominguez Ojeda sought review of this negative determination.The matter was referred to an Immigration Judge (IJ) for a reasonable fear review hearing. During this hearing, Dominguez Ojeda attempted to introduce new evidence, including claims of being raped by Peru Libre members and country conditions reports. The IJ refused to consider this new evidence, mistakenly believing that he lacked the discretion to review evidence not initially presented to the asylum officer. The IJ cited the case Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland, which allows an IJ to exercise discretion in considering new evidence, but still concluded that he could not review the new evidence. Consequently, the IJ upheld the asylum officer's negative reasonable fear determination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the IJ committed legal error by failing to exercise discretion regarding the consideration of new evidence. The court clarified that while an IJ is not required to consider new evidence at a reasonable fear hearing, the IJ must exercise discretion in deciding whether to accept or reject such evidence. The Ninth Circuit granted Dominguez Ojeda’s petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the IJ to properly exercise discretion in considering the new evidence. View "OJEDA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Catherine Berry sued her employer, Air Force Central Welfare Fund, and its insurer, Air Force Insurance Fund, to enforce administrative default orders for disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. After Berry filed her lawsuit, the defendants voluntarily paid her the full amount owed, including penalties and interest. Berry then sought attorneys’ fees under 33 U.S.C. § 928(a), arguing that her case was not moot due to her pending fee request.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Berry’s motion for attorneys’ fees and dismissed her complaint as moot. The court held that Berry did not “successfully prosecute” her claim under § 928(a) because the defendants’ voluntary payment mooted the case, and Berry obtained no judicially sanctioned relief. Berry appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that Berry’s claim was moot because she received the full amount owed and sought no other compensation. The court also rejected Berry’s argument that her lawsuit was the catalyst for the defendants’ payment, stating that the catalyst theory is unavailable under § 928(a). The court concluded that Berry did not “successfully prosecute” her claim in the district court, as she obtained no judicially sanctioned relief. Therefore, Berry was not entitled to attorneys’ fees under § 928(a). The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case as moot. View "BERRY V. AIR FORCE CENTRAL WELFARE FUND" on Justia Law