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

Cobian first entered the U.S. in 1999. In 2004, he was returned to Mexico after being convicted of DUI. In 2016, Cobian, with his wife and children, presented himself to seek asylum. Cobian was separated from his family and given Notice of Expedited Removal. He sought asylum. Officers provided him with English and Spanish explanations of the credible fear interview process, detention protocols, his rights, and the consequences of removal. Cobian explained that he had been kidnapped for ransom in Mexico and was again being targeted; his captors, allegedly gang members, cut off his finger and sent it to his wife. The asylum officer ruled against Cobian and explained the right to appeal. Cobian declined because he did not want to remain in detention, unable to contact his family. Cobian was deported to Mexico but, in 2018, attempted reentry, and was deported.In 2019, Cobian was again found in the U.S. and was charged with illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. 1326. Cobian argued that the predicate expedited removal order was entered in violation of his due process rights and even if he waived his right to appeal the asylum claim, his waiver was not considered and intelligent. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of his motion to dismiss. Administrative remedies must be exhausted before an order of removal can be collaterally challenged in a subsequent criminal prosecution for re-entry. Cobian made a considered and intelligent decision to waive his right to appeal the negative credible fear finding. View "United States v. De la Mora-Cobian" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her sentence imposed after she pleaded guilty to unlawful importation of methamphetamine and heroin, principally contending that the district court erred by failing to give her advance notice before imposing a special condition of supervised release that requires her to submit to suspicionless searches by any law enforcement officer.The Ninth Circuit concluded that United States v. Wise, 391 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2004), which held that, where a condition of supervised release is not on the list of mandatory or discretionary conditions in the sentencing guidelines, notice is required before it is imposed, remains good law after Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008), which held that, before imposing a custodial sentence, a district court is not required to give advance notice that it is considering varying upwards from the applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines. Therefore, Wise is controlling here and the district court erred by failing to give notice that it was contemplating imposing its broad search condition prior to imposing that condition in its oral pronouncement of sentence. The panel vacated at least that portion of defendant's sentence. The court affirmed the custodial portion of defendant's sentence, finding no plain error. View "United States v. Reyes" on Justia Law

Defendant Franklin pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i)–(ii) and 2, and robbery affecting interstate commerce (Hobbs Act robbery) in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a).The Ninth Circuit concluded that binding precedent forecloses Franklin's contention that Hobbs Act robbery is not categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A). The panel concluded that there are two distinct questions that this court answers in examining a hearsay statement at sentencing: (1) whether the statement is "procedurally reliable" and (2) whether the statement is "substantively reliable." If the court answers either question in the affirmative, then the statement may be considered at sentencing. The panel explained that this is a disjunctive test: If the court answered either question in the affirmative, then the statement may be considered at sentencing. In this case, the government provided enough specifics so that Franklin was not put to the burden of proving that the enhancement did not apply, and that there were adequate procedural opportunities for Franklin to challenge the extrinsic, nonhearsay evidence corroborating Coconspirator Hiler's hearsay statements. The panel concluded that there was no error in the district court's conclusion that the evidence sufficiently corroborated Hiler's statements and that the admission of those statements at sentencing did not deprive Franklin of due process. Furthermore, the district court did not clearly err in implicitly finding the two coconspirators' statements to corroborate each other enough to be substantively reliable, and that their admission at sentencing thus did not violate due process. View "United States v. Franklin" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioners' second motion to reopen their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The panel concluded that the Board erred by failing to assess petitioners’ individualized risk of persecution in Indonesia due to their identity as evangelical Christians. Although the Board correctly recognized that Christians in Indonesia are a disfavored group, the panel explained that the Board failed to account for petitioners' status as evangelical Christians or the evidence they presented indicating that evangelical Christians have experienced a particular increase in violence and persecution, beyond that experienced by Indonesian Christians in general. Accordingly, the panel remanded for the Board to assess whether country conditions in Indonesia have materially changed for evangelical Christians in particular, as distinct from Christians in general. The panel also remanded with instructions. View "Nababan v. Garland" on Justia Law

In 2004-2005, the government filed forfeiture actions against a Credit Suisse account, owned by a corporation organized by Kim’s sister . The government alleged the $15 million account included proceeds of fraudulent activities involving Kim’s control of Optional. The district court ordered the seizure of the Account. The putative owners (Kim Claimants) contested the forfeiture. Optional, no longer under Kim's control, and DAS, an alleged victim of Kim's fraud, filed competing claims.In 2011, after years of parallel litigation, the Swiss Attorney General’s Office unfroze the Account and ordered the bank to wire $12.6 million to DAS, which filed a “Notice of Withdrawal of Claims” in the forfeiture proceeding. The court ordered that no party disturb money remaining in the Credit Suisse accounts and requested that the government investigate how the transfer to DAS was accomplished. The court declined to hold DAS in contempt, concluded that it “cannot compel DAS to surrender the funds,” then granted DAS’s opposed motion to be dismissed from the forfeiture proceedings.Optional, the sole remaining claimant, submitted a 2013 proposed final judgment, which the district court adopted. Five years later, Optional sought to hold DAS in contempt for allegedly violating that judgment because DAS failed to surrender the money transferred in 2011; the 2013 judgment had awarded Optional all funds in the Account as of August 2005. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the contempt motion. The 2013 judgment did not require DAS to turn over $12.6 million to Optional. At the 2013 trial, the court did not have before it, and did not undertake to decide, the competing claims to the transferred money. In awarding Optional “all funds” the district court unmistakably was referring only to the remaining funds. View "Optional Capital, Inc. v. DAS Corp." on Justia Law

The EEOC concluded, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), that the Army had unlawfully discriminated against Plaskett when it failed to rehire him for a civilian position, awarded Plaskett reinstatement and backpay, and ordered the Army to pay him sanctions based on the Army’s failure to comply with discovery obligations during administrative proceedings. The Army refused to pay the sanctions award, citing sovereign immunity. Although the Army agreed to hire Plaskett and paid him backpay, Plaskett claimed that the Army owed him additional backpay and filed suit, arguing that the Army’s nondiscretionary duty to pay these sums was enforceable under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. 1361, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(1).The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction. Regardless of whether the claim was viewed under the Mandamus Act or under the APA, Plaskett was required to plead that the Army had a clear, certain, and mandatory duty. The claim to additional backpay rested on an EEOC decision that, on its face. expressed uncertainty as to what amount of additional backpay might be due. The complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to show that a certain amount of additional backpay was now clearly owed. The ADEA did not include a sufficient waiver of the government’s immunity against monetary litigation sanctions with respect to the sanctions award. View "Plaskett v. Wormuth" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a student with ADHD and disability-related behavioral issues, filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alleging that the school district denied him equal access to a public education because of his disability. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative procedures under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as required when a plaintiff seeks relief under other federal statutes for the denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).In 2020, the Ninth Circuit vacated the dismissal. The en banc court subsequently affirmed the dismissal, holding that exhaustion of the IDEA process was required because the gravamen of the complaint was the denial of a FAPE by failing to provide a one-on-one behavioral aide and related supportive services. The court analyzed two hypothetical questions: whether the plaintiff could have brought essentially the same claim if the alleged conduct had occurred at a non-school public facility, and whether an adult at the school could have pressed essentially the same grievance. A court also must consider the history of the proceedings, particularly whether the plaintiff has previously invoked the IDEA’s formal procedures to handle the dispute. The court rejected D.D.’s argument that he need not exhaust because he seeks compensatory damages for emotional distress, which is not available under the IDEA. The court declined to address whether D.D.’s settlement of the administrative proceedings equated to exhaustion or whether D.D.’s settlement rendered further exhaustion futile. View "D. D. v. Los Angeles Unified School District" on Justia Law

Fried worked as a manicurist, 2005-2017. Fried complained about female manicurists receiving most of the appointments and that other male manicurists also complained. In 2017, Fried became frustrated and threw a pencil at a computer because customers were requesting female manicurists more often than male manicurists. His manager disciplined him and commented that he might want to find other work. He alleges that his coworkers and customers made harassing comments and that he was told to finish a pedicure for a male customer who had solicited him for sex. Fried filed suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, alleging sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile environment.The Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment against Fried. A reasonable factfinder could decide that Fried’s employer created a hostile work environment. An employer can create a hostile work environment by failing to take immediate and corrective action in response to a coworker’s or third party’s sexual harassment or racial discrimination that the employer knew or should have known about. While comments made by a manager and coworkers on two occasions were insufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim, an employer’s response to unwelcome sexual advances toward an employee can independently create a hostile work environment. Fried’s manager failed to take immediate corrective action and also directed Fried to return to the customer and complete his pedicure. The district court should reconsider the cumulative effect of the coworkers’ comments. View "Fried v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC" on Justia Law

.In 2010, the district court invalidated California’s Proposition 8, which prohibited same-sex marriage. Judge Walker recorded the trial. When Proposition 8 Proponents objected, he stated that the recording was not going to be used for public broadcasting or televising. The recordings were offered to the parties for use in their closing arguments and were later entered into the record under seal. In 2011, the Chief Judge ordered the recordings to be unsealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed, citing Judge Walker’s specific assurances and local Rule 79-5(f), which provides that any document filed under seal in a civil case shall be open to the public 10 years from the date the case was closed unless good cause could be shown to extend the seal.In 2020, Proponents asked the district court to extend the seal. The district court declined, noting that Proponents failed to submit any evidence that any Proponent or witness wanted the recordings to remain under seal or feared retaliation or harassment if the recordings were released.The Ninth Circuit dismissed an appeal. Proponents failed to establish a particularized and concrete injury sufficient to constitute “injury in fact” for purposes of jurisdiction. Even a “promise” made by a judge to litigants in the course of litigation is not an enforceable contract. The court rejected contentions that the unsealing would result in a “palpable injustice” or would harm future litigants’ ability to rely on judicial “promises.” Neither alleged injury was sufficiently concrete and particularized to establish Article III standing. View "Perry v. Hollingsworth" on Justia Law

Goulart, a citizen of Brazil. was removed in 2013, after the BIA determined that his conviction was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b). In 2015, the Ninth Circuit held that section 16(b) was unconstitutionally vague. In 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed in “Dimaya.” Goulart learned of the latter ruling on June 9, 2018, when he was so informed by his former defense attorney. He filed his motion for reconsideration based on a change in the law on July 16, 2018.The Ninth Circuit held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Goulart’s claim for equitable tolling of the 30-day motions deadline. Goulart failed to present any evidence suggesting that he diligently pursued his rights during the time between his removal in 2013 and when he learned of Dimaya in 2018. Even assuming that he was unaware of the Ninth Circuit’s 2015 decision, the BIA did not act arbitrarily or irrationally in determining that Goulart failed to make reasonable efforts to pursue relief. View "Goulart v. Garland" on Justia Law