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

Carl Race, a prisoner in Montana, filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in 2023 seeking to set aside his 1996 conviction for deliberate homicide and attempted deliberate homicide. Race argued that his petition should be considered despite being filed over twenty years late due to ineffective assistance of counsel and his own mental and physical impairments. He claimed these impairments constituted extraordinary circumstances that should toll the statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).The United States District Court for the District of Montana dismissed Race's petition sua sponte as time-barred without providing him prior notice or an opportunity to respond. The court concluded that Race had not demonstrated the necessary extraordinary circumstances to warrant equitable tolling of the AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations. The court also denied Race a certificate of appealability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court erred in dismissing the petition without providing Race notice and an opportunity to respond. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that due process requires that a petitioner be given notice and an opportunity to present their case before a habeas petition is dismissed on timeliness grounds. The court vacated the district court's order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this holding. The dissenting judge would have affirmed the dismissal, arguing that due process did not require giving Race another chance to repeat his arguments. View "RACE V. SALMONSEN" on Justia Law

Joseph Sullivan, the former Chief Security Officer for Uber Technologies, was convicted of obstruction of justice and misprision of a felony. The case arose from Sullivan's efforts to cover up a significant data breach at Uber while the company was under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for its data security practices. The breach involved hackers accessing and downloading sensitive information from Uber's servers. Sullivan and his team tracked down the hackers and had them sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in exchange for a payment, recharacterizing the hack as part of Uber's Bug Bounty Program.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California presided over the trial, where a jury found Sullivan guilty. Sullivan appealed, challenging the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence, and an evidentiary ruling. He argued that the district court erred in rejecting his proposed jury instructions regarding the "nexus" requirement for the obstruction charge and the "duty to disclose" instruction. He also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his misprision conviction and that the court improperly admitted a guilty plea agreement signed by one of the hackers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that Ninth Circuit precedent foreclosed Sullivan's argument regarding the "nexus" instruction and that the district court did not err in rejecting it. The court also found that the omission of the "duty to disclose" instruction was proper, as the theories of liability under Section 1505 and Section 2(b) were conjunctive. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Sullivan's misprision conviction and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the hacker's guilty plea agreement. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Sullivan's conviction. View "USA V. SULLIVAN" on Justia Law

Keith Paul Bird, a prisoner at High Desert State Prison in Nevada, requested a cell transfer due to concerns about his cellmate, fearing a potential fight. Officer Bruce Huinker, the officer in charge, called for assistance, and Officers Paryga and Atherton responded. Bird explained his concerns, and Officer Paryga allegedly threatened him. The officers then instructed Bird to gather his belongings for a move but later changed their minds, leading to a confrontation. Bird's property was confiscated, and he claimed this was in retaliation for his request. Bird filed grievances, which were denied at all levels.Bird then filed a pro se complaint in federal court against the officers and other prison administrators, alleging retaliation and other claims. The district court found that only the retaliation claim survived screening and was properly exhausted. The district court denied the prison officials' motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim, holding that they were not entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Bird's request for a cell transfer based on concerns with his cellmate did not constitute "protected conduct" under clearly established law. The court noted that neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit had ever held that retaliation for complaints against other prisoners violated the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances. Consequently, the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment on Bird's retaliation claim. View "BIRD V. DZURENDA" on Justia Law

Steven D’Braunstein was involved in a serious single-vehicle accident, resulting in his car being totaled. California Highway Patrol Officer Samantha Diaz-Durazo arrived at the scene and found D’Braunstein disoriented and in physical distress. Despite his evident symptoms, she did not call for medical assistance. Instead, she arrested him for driving under the influence of drugs and took him to jail. A nurse at the jail refused to admit D’Braunstein due to his medical condition, prompting Durazo to finally take him to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a stroke. The delay in receiving medical treatment allegedly led to permanent injuries for D’Braunstein.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Durazo, holding that although she violated D’Braunstein’s Fourth Amendment rights by failing to provide reasonable medical care, she was entitled to qualified immunity. The court reasoned that the constitutional violation was not clearly established, as D’Braunstein’s injury was sustained prior to his arrest and not during the arrest process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find that Durazo violated D’Braunstein’s constitutional rights by failing to summon prompt medical care, given the serious nature of the collision and his symptoms. The court further held that Durazo’s failure to provide medical care was a violation of clearly established law, which requires officers to seek medical assistance for an injured detainee or arrestee facing a substantial and obvious risk of serious harm. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "D’Braunstein v. California Highway Patrol" on Justia Law

Ryan Bussey, a former Army soldier, received a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) after being found guilty of wrongful sexual contact. He sought to upgrade his discharge to Honorable, arguing that his combat-induced Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) contributed to his conduct. The Army Board for Correction of Military Records acknowledged Bussey's PTSD but concluded it was not a mitigating factor for his crime of conviction.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Army, upholding the Board's decision. Bussey appealed this decision, seeking review under the Administrative Procedure Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the Board erred in its decision. The court held that the Board failed to consider all the circumstances resulting in Bussey's discharge, focusing too narrowly on whether PTSD caused the legal elements of the crime. The court emphasized that the Board should have analyzed whether PTSD potentially contributed to the facts, events, and conditions leading to Bussey's wrongful sexual contact.Additionally, the court found that the Board did not give liberal consideration to Bussey's PTSD-based claim, as required by 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h)(2)(B). The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case to the Board to reconsider Bussey's upgrade request under the appropriate standard, instructing the Board to resolve doubts and inferences in favor of Bussey. If the Board finds that PTSD contributed to the circumstances resulting in Bussey's discharge, it may grant the requested relief. View "Bussey v. Driscoll" on Justia Law

Two professors of Indian descent and adherents to the Hindu religion challenged California State University's (CSU) anti-discrimination and harassment policy, which included "caste" as a protected class. They argued that this inclusion stigmatized their religion and caused them to self-censor certain religious practices. They filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Due Process Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as equivalent claims under the California Constitution.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the professors' Equal Protection claim and the equivalent state law claim for lack of standing. The court also dismissed the Free Exercise claim for failing to state a claim without deciding on standing. The Due Process and Establishment Clause claims proceeded to a bench trial, where the court ultimately dismissed these claims as well, finding that the professors lacked sufficient injury for a pre-enforcement challenge and that the policy did not express government disapproval of Hinduism.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the professors lacked Article III standing for their Due Process claim because they failed to show that they intended to engage in any religious practice that could reasonably constitute caste discrimination or harassment. The court also found that the professors lacked standing for their Free Exercise claim, as they did not demonstrate any injury to their ability to exercise their religion. Finally, the court held that the professors lacked standing for their Establishment Clause claim, as the district court's factual finding that the policy had no hostility toward religion was not clearly erroneous. The court affirmed the judgment for the defendants and remanded for entry of judgment of dismissal without prejudice. View "Kumar v. Koester" on Justia Law

Peyman Roshan, a lawyer and real estate broker, had his law license suspended by the California Supreme Court in 2021 for misconduct. Following this, the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) initiated a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding against his real estate license. Roshan filed a federal lawsuit against the DRE, alleging constitutional violations and seeking to enjoin the DRE's disciplinary action.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Roshan's lawsuit, citing the Younger abstention doctrine, which prevents federal courts from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. The district court held that the DRE's disciplinary proceeding was quasi-criminal in nature and that Roshan could raise his federal claims during the judicial review of the DRE action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court correctly applied the Younger abstention doctrine. The court noted that the state proceedings were ongoing, involved important state interests, and allowed Roshan to raise his federal claims. The court also determined that the DRE proceeding was quasi-criminal because it was initiated by a state agency following an investigation, involved formal charges, and aimed to determine whether Roshan should be sanctioned by suspending or revoking his real estate license.The Ninth Circuit concluded that all the requirements for Younger abstention were met and that Roshan had not demonstrated any bad faith, harassment, or extraordinary circumstances that would make abstention inappropriate. Therefore, the district court's decision to abstain from hearing the case was proper, and the dismissal of Roshan's lawsuit was affirmed. View "ROSHAN V. MCCAULEY" on Justia Law

Jose Trinidad Martinez Santoyo was sought for extradition to Mexico to face charges of intentional aggravated homicide. In January 2014, a Mexican judge issued an arrest warrant for Santoyo, alleging he shot a man twice in the head after an argument. Mexico requested his provisional arrest in November 2018, and the United States filed a complaint in August 2021. Santoyo was arrested in May 2022 and released on bail in November 2022. Mexico formally requested his extradition in July 2022, providing various supporting documents. A magistrate judge certified the extradition in February 2023, and Santoyo challenged this certification via a habeas corpus petition.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Santoyo's habeas corpus petition. Santoyo argued that the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico incorporated the Sixth Amendment's Speedy Trial Clause, contending that the delay between the 2014 arrest warrant and the 2022 extradition request violated his speedy trial rights. The district court rejected this argument, holding that the treaty's "lapse of time" provision referred only to statutes of limitations, not to the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial protections.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 "lapse of time" language in the extradition treaty does not incorporate the Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial Clause. The court emphasized that extradition proceedings are not criminal prosecutions and that the treaty's language refers to statutes of limitations rather than the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court also noted that the judiciary's role in extradition is limited and that issues of delay are more appropriately addressed by the Secretary of State. View "SANTOYO V. BOYDEN" on Justia Law

John Walthall, while awaiting sentencing for a fraud conviction, solicited a fellow inmate to arrange for hit men to murder the judge, investigators, and attorneys involved in his case. The inmate reported Walthall's request to authorities, leading to Walthall's conviction for solicitation to commit a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 373(a). Walthall argued that the evidence was insufficient because he had no direct contact with the hit men, who did not exist.The United States District Court for the Central District of California found Walthall guilty, but the jury was initially unable to reach a verdict. After a retrial, Walthall was convicted, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, citing errors in denying Walthall the right to represent himself. On remand, the district court evaluated Walthall's competency to stand trial and represent himself, ultimately concluding that he was competent to stand trial but not to represent himself due to severe mental illness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed Walthall's conviction. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 373(a) does not require direct communication with the person solicited or that the person solicited actually exists. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as Walthall's intent and actions strongly corroborated his intent for someone to commit violence. The court also rejected Walthall's challenges to the jury instructions and the district court's finding that he was incapable of representing himself. The court found no error in the district court's sentencing calculation based on the maximum sentence for soliciting murder. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "USA V. WALTHALL" on Justia Law

Sergeant Dan Ponder of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department responded to a call about someone destroying property with a bat. Upon arrival, he encountered Clemente Najera-Aguirre, who matched the suspect's description. Ponder commanded Najera to drop the bat, but Najera did not comply and approached Ponder. Ponder pepper-sprayed Najera twice, but it was ineffective. Ponder then fired six shots, with the final two bullets, which were fatal, striking Najera in the back as he turned away.The plaintiffs, Najera’s children, sued Ponder and Riverside County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Ponder’s motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision on interlocutory appeal. After a five-day trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $10 million in damages. Ponder’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, including a claim for qualified immunity, was denied by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The court held that Ponder did not waive his qualified immunity defense and that the jury’s verdict established that Ponder violated Najera’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court found that Ponder’s use of deadly force was not justified as Najera posed no immediate threat to Ponder or others, and the law clearly established that such force was unlawful. The court emphasized that Ponder’s actions, including shooting Najera in the back, did not entitle him to qualified immunity. View "ESTATE OF AGUIRRE V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE" on Justia Law