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

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law claims arising from Defendant Stringer's fatal shooting of plaintiff's son, Michael Dozer. The district court entered judgment for defendants after the jury returned a special verdict finding that Stringer did not use excessive force or act negligently.The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, holding that the district court abused its discretion in excluding plaintiff's proposed testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402. In this case, the district court excluded as irrelevant plaintiff's testimony about her percipient observations of Dozer's past behavior, which she offered to prove that Stringer should have recognized that Dozer was exhibiting signs of mental illness at the time of their encounter and therefore that the shooting was unreasonable. The panel also rejected defendants' alternative argument that plaintiff's proposed testimony was an improper lay opinion under Rule 701. Finally, the panel held that the district court's evidentiary error was not harmless and a new trial was warranted. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Crawford v. City of Bakersfield" on Justia Law

The en banc court affirmed the district court's grant of sentencing relief based on petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, holding that the California Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law when it concluded that petitioner received constitutionally adequate representation at the penalty phase of his trial.The en banc court held that the only reasonable interpretation of Supreme Court precedent and the facts of this case lead to the following conclusions: (1) that counsel failed in their duty to undertake a reasonable investigation at the penalty phase of petitioner's trial; (2) that counsel's choices cannot be rationalized as "strategic" or "tactical;" and (3) that any reasonably competent attorney would have discovered and introduced the substantial and compelling mitigating evidence that existed. The en banc court held that no fair-minded jurist would conclude otherwise. The en banc court also held that the California Supreme Court's conclusion that petitioner suffered no prejudice was objectively unreasonable. Without having heard the substantial and compelling mitigating evidence, the en banc court held that the jury could not fairly gauge petitioner's moral culpability at sentencing. View "Andrews v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's approval of a settlement notice process and a class action settlement, negotiated without a certified class, in a case arising out of a dispute under federal and California labor law regarding whether exotic dancers working at various nightclubs in San Francisco were misclassified as independent contractors rather than being treated as employees.The panel held that the settlement notice did not meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's "best notice that is practicable under the circumstances" standard. The panel also held that the district court abused its discretion in approving the settlement, because the district court applied an incorrect legal standard and failed to employ the heightened scrutiny required to meet the strict procedural burden the panel imposed for assessing class settlements negotiated prior to class certification. The panel also reversed the district court's award of attorneys' fees, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Murphy v. SFBSC Management" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the city and police department officials in an action brought by plaintiff, who was 74 years old at the time, challenging the issuance and execution of a search warrant on her home, as well as her detention incident to the search. In this case, officers acted pursuant to a search warrant to investigate an illegal marijuana operation.The panel held that there was probable cause to search plaintiff's mobile home based on the informant's reliability and the probability that probative evidence or contraband would be found in the residences on the property, including the mobile home. Therefore, the search warrant's breadth was co-extensive with the scope of the probable cause and was not overbroad. The panel also held that the officers acted reasonably when they continued to search plaintiff's mobile home because the probable cause to search the mobile home did not depend on the suspect living there. Rather, the panel held that the officers had probable cause to continue the search because they could still reasonably believe that the entire property was suspect and that the property was still under the suspect's common control. Furthermore, the panel held that the duration of the detention, about an hour, was reasonable. Finally, none of plaintiff's alleged omissions amounted to judicial deception. View "Blight v. City of Manteca" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of asylum and related relief. The panel held that an asylum officer's credibility conclusion could not support an adverse credibility finding. In this case, the agency legally erred by relying on the asylum officer's assessment of petitioner's credibility.The panel also held that, where, as here, petitioner's testimony was consistent with, but more detailed than, her asylum application, petitioner's testimony is not per se lacking in credibility. Therefore, the finding that petitioner was less credible merely because her statement did not note the specific date the abortion occurred or the names of the family planning director and hospital staff was unreasonable. The panel also held that petitioner's testimony about the asylum interview did not support the adverse credibility finding; the IJ's speculation that petitioner was in fact still living in Indiana was not a sufficient basis for an adverse credibility finding; the BIA impermissibly engaged in factfinding; and petitioner was entitled to notice and an opportunity to produce corroborating evidence or explain why it was unavailable. View "Lizhi Qiu v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the city's requirement that individuals obtain permits before they use sound amplifying devices within the city. In this case, plaintiff wanted to use a bullhorn to amplify his voice during protests of alleged animal mistreatment at Six Flags Discovery Park.Determining that the case was not moot even in light of the city's recent amendment, the panel held that the district court abused its discretion by concluding that plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claim that the permit requirement imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint on public speech. In this case, although the permit requirement furthered the city's significant interests, it was not narrowly tailored because it covered substantially more speech than necessary to achieve those interests. The panel also held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to recognize a police officer's threat of criminal sanctions against plaintiff as irreparable harm. Furthermore, the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the balance of equities did not tip in plaintiff's favor. Finally, the panel held that it was well within the public interest to issue a preliminary injunction. View "Cuviello v. City of Vallejo" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for bribery of a public official under 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2)(A) where defendant, while working as a field representative for a congresswoman, took money from an undercover agent in exchange for a promise that he made as a federal public official. In this case, defendant promised to make a marijuana dispensary's permitting problems "go away" in exchange for $5,000.The panel held that defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence where a rational jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant in fact had the ability to exert the promised influence. The panel rejected defendant's contention that because marijuana dispensaries were categorically unlawful in Compton, and it would have been impossible for him to help secure an operating permit, there was no "official act." Rather, the panel stated that a bribe tied to a contingency was no less a bribe. The panel explained that the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that defendant could have exerted influence to help obtain the promised permit at a later date. The panel wrote that it was true the contingency never came to be, and the dispensary got shot down, but section 201 liability did not depend on an outcome; the offense was complete at the moment of agreement, and that agreement need not even be accompanied by the bribe recipient's genuine intentions to follow through. Regardless, the panel held that the prosecution was not required to prove that defendant could achieve the outcome promised. View "United States v. Kimbrew" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying the Board's petition to enforce five requests issued by the Board in subpoenas following an explosion and chemical release at an ExxonMobile refinery. The panel held that, although the district court did an admirable job, it erred in finding these five requests unenforceable. In this case, the five subpoena requests relating to the alkylation unit and the modified hydrofluoric acid stored there were relevant to the February 2015 explosion and accidental release of modified hydrofluoric acid. The panel held that a review of the specific disputed requests confirmed that each sought material that might cast light on the Board's investigation into the February 2015 release. View "United States v. Exxon Mobil Corp." on Justia Law

Various states, municipalities, and organizations filed suit seeking a preliminary injunction against the implementation of DHS's Final Rule, which redefined the term "public charge" to require consideration of not only cash benefits, but also certain non-cash benefits. Under the Final Rule, an alien is a public charge if they receive one or more public benefits, including cash and non-cash benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Section 8 housing assistance, Section 8 project-based rental assistance, Medicaid (with certain exceptions), and Section 9 public housing.The Ninth Circuit granted a stay of two preliminary injunctions granted by two different district courts, holding that DHS has shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits because the Final Rule was neither contrary to law nor arbitrary and capricious; DHS will suffer irreparable harm because the preliminary injunctions will force it to grant status to those not legally entitled to it; and the balance of the equities and public interest favor a stay. View "City and County of San Francisco v. USCIS" on Justia Law

The revocation of citizenship on the ground that the grant of citizenship was "illegally procured or . . . procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation," 8 U.S.C. 1451(a), does not constitute a "penalty" for purposes of the five year statute of limitations generally applicable to civil fines, penalties, and forfeitures, under 28 U.S.C. 2462.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the government, holding that the purpose of denaturalization is to remedy a past fraud by taking back a benefit to which an alien is not entitled. Therefore, the panel held that section 2462 did not provide petitioner a statute of limitations defense, because denaturalization was not a penalty for purposes of section 2462. View "United States v. Phattey" on Justia Law