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

Plaintiffs, two prisoners on Idaho's death row, filed suit seek information concerning Idaho's execution procedures. Plaintiffs claim that the deprivation of execution-related information itself constitutes a violation of their constitutional and statutory rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court determined that plaintiffs' claims were unripe because they have ongoing post-conviction litigation, the outcome of which remains uncertain.The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. As to ripeness, Idaho acknowledges that both plaintiffs are close to exhausting their post-conviction appeals and intends to proceed with their executions; plaintiffs claim the state's refusal to provide certain information violates their rights now; and the state has issued a revised execution protocol, from which the court can readily determine now whether plaintiffs' alleged rights, if they exist, have been violated. In these circumstances, the panel concluded that plaintiffs' claims are ripe. Given the unusual timeline of events in this case, the panel must also consider mootness. Because Idaho has now issued a revised Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that explains the procedures and drugs the state will use, these claims are moot. Applying the ripeness and mootness principles to each of plaintiffs' specific claims, the panel concluded that Claim One, Claim Two, part of Claim Four, part of Claim Five, and Claim Seven are ripe. The panel found the rest moot. Furthermore, the panel lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims. View "Pizzuto v. Tewalt" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of a search of his pocket and his subsequent conviction for possession of 35.35 grams of heroin with intent to distribute. The panel concluded that the officers complied with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and its progeny in all respects except one: in conducting the limited protective search for weapons that Terry authorizes, the officer here did not perform any patdown or other initial limited intrusion but instead proceeded directly to extract and examine an item in defendant's pocket. The panel concluded that, under Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968)—a companion case to Terry that was decided the same day—the officer's search of defendant's pocket exceeded the limited scope of what Terry permits and was therefore unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order dismissing as time-barred defendant's seven non-conspiracy criminal counts. Plaintiff's convictions stemmed from his engagement in a scheme seeking payments in exchange for steering the award of Department of Defense contracts for infrastructure, engineering, and construction projects in Korea.The panel concluded that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act's (WSLA) restrictive relative clause—"which is connected with or related to the prosecution of the war or directly connected with or related to the authorized use of the Armed Forces"—does not modify the first offense category "involving fraud or attempted fraud" or the second offense category involving "any real or personal property of the United States." 18 U.S.C. 3287. Therefore, the panel concluded that the running of any statute of limitations applicable to the WSLA's fraud and property offense categories—offense categories under which defendant was charged—is suspended, whether or not a nexus exists between these offenses and either war or "authorized use of the Armed Forces." Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Nishiie" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner and her minor child's motion to reopen. The panel held that exceptional circumstances warranted reopening of their in absentia removal orders.The panel first considered the circumstances that caused petitioner's failure to appear. In this case, petitioner suffers from chronic memory problems that stem from a childhood head injury, so she did not remember what the IJ had told her orally about her next hearing date. Therefore, she relied on the information in the notice of hearing. However, because petitioner cannot read, she asked her family members to read the notice for her, but the new notice, unlike the first one, provided a numerical date for the hearing, "07/12/2016." Petitioner's family interpreted this notation as December 7, 2016, based on how numerical dates in Latin America (and most of the rest of the world) are typically written, with the day appearing before the month. The panel explained that the BIA abused its discretion by concluding that petitioner should have confirmed her hearing date through the immigration court's automated system. Furthermore, the BIA erred in not addressing whether petitioner had any motive for failing to appear and whether the in absentia removal orders would cause unconscionable results. Secondly, the panel concluded that imposing the removal orders would present an unconscionable result. Finally, the panel noted that the IJ entered an in absentia order against petitioner's minor child and thus petitioner's failure to appear prejudiced the child's opportunity for relief as well. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Hernandez-Galand v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his family filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging causes of action for assault, negligence and gross negligence, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from his arrest at the border for drug-related charges that were subsequently dropped.The Ninth Circuit dismissed plaintiff's appeal of the district court's judgment based on lack of jurisdiction under the discretionary function exception of the FTCA. The court concluded that because plaintiff's detention was based on a valid finding of probable cause and no violation of the Constitution has been shown, the district court properly found that the agents' acts were discretionary under the first prong of the discretionary-function exception. Furthermore, the agents' discretionary judgments involved social, economic, or political considerations, and their actions did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights. Therefore, the panel affirmed the district court's discretionary-function exception determination as it relates to claims arising out of the alleged assault, negligence and gross negligence, and false imprisonment of defendant and his family. Finally, the panel dismissed plaintiff's appeal of the district court's order following the bench trial on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because plaintiff did not have a valid constitutional challenge to the interrogation and plaintiff failed to include key trial testimony. View "Nieves Martinez v. United States" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision concluding that petitioner was removable for having been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude (CIMT) within five years after the date of admission, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i).The panel applied the two-step Chevron inquiry, concluding that: (1) the phrase "the date of admission" in section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) is ambiguous; and (2) the interpretation in Matter of Alyazji, 25 I. & N. Dec. 397 (BIA 2011), of that ambiguous phrase is "a permissible construction of the statute." The panel concluded that Alyazji, and its application in the unpublished BIA decision in this case, meet the requirements for Chevron deference set forth in United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226–27 (2001). The panel acknowledged that the Alyazji interpretation of section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) results in serious consequences when applied to petitioner, who is a Micronesian citizen, because he had less incentive to apply to become a legal permanent resident or naturalize as a United States citizen. View "Route v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing as barred by the one-year statute of limitations a Montana state prisoner's habeas corpus petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The panel concluded that the one-year period begins to run upon "the conclusion of direct review" of the conviction, and it is suspended during the pendency of any "properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review." The panel held that a proceeding in the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court constitutes collateral review, rather than direct review, making the petition here untimely. View "Branham v. Montana" on Justia Law

The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq., does not preempt a California law that creates a state-managed individual retirement account (IRA) program.The Ninth Circuit concluded that CalSavers is not an ERISA plan because it is established and maintained by the State, not employers; it does not require employers to operate their own ERISA plans; and it does not have an impermissible reference to or connection with ERISA. Furthermore, CalSavers does not interfere with ERISA's core purposes. Therefore, ERISA does not preclude California's endeavor to encourage personal retirement savings by requiring employers who do not offer retirement plans to participate in CalSavers. The panel affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, cattle ranchers, filed suit in federal district court, claiming that the Service's decision to apply the 1995 Riparian Mitigation Measures to the Dry Cottonwood Allotment, instead of the allowable use levels in the 2009 Forest Plan, violated the National Forest Management Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiffs and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment to the Service. The panel concluded that the Service lawfully applied a particular set of standards for protecting stream habitats from the effects of cattle grazing, the 1995 Riparian Mitigation Measures, to plaintiffs' grazing permits. The panel also concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act for their administrative appeal. View "2-Bar Ranch Limited Partnership v. United States Forest Service" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Nationstar in a diversity action brought by plaintiff alleging claims arising from nonjudicial foreclosure by a HOA on real property in Nevada. The Federal Foreclosure Bar, 12 U.S.C. 4617(j)(3), and Nevada state law, which establishes that in the event a homeowner fails to pay a certain portion of HOA dues, the HOA is authorized to foreclose on a "superpriority lien" in that amount, extinguishing all other liens and encumbrances on the delinquent property recorded after the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions attached to the title. The panel concluded that while Nevada law generally gives delinquent HOA dues superpriority over other lienholders, it does not take priority over federal law. Furthermore, federal law, in the form of the Federal Foreclosure Bar, prohibits the foreclosure of Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) property without FHFA's consent.In this case, the panel concluded that Nationstar properly and timely raised its claims based on the Federal Foreclosure Bar. The panel also concluded that the Federal Foreclosure Bar applies to the HOA foreclosure sale here where Fannie Mae held an enforceable interest in the loan at the time of the HOA foreclosure sale, as established by evidence of Fannie Mae's acquisition and continued ownership of the loan throughout that time and by evidence of its agency relationship with BANA (formerly BAC), the named beneficiary on the recorded Deed. The panel explained that Fannie Mae's interest in the loan, coupled with the fact that it was under FHFA conservatorship at the time of the sale, means the Federal Foreclosure Bar applies to this case. Finally, the panel concluded that the Federal Foreclosure Bar preempts the Nevada HOA Law. View "Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Saticoy Bay LLC" on Justia Law