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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion challenging the validity of a conviction for use of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). In this case, defendant walked into a pharmacy, pointed a gun at an employee, and demanded all of the pharmacy's OxyContin.The panel held that armed robbery involving controlled substances described in 18 U.S.C. 2118(c)(1) is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A). The panel explained that, because robbery involving controlled substances by force or violence or intimidation is a crime of violence, so too is armed robbery involving controlled substances, which requires proof of all the elements of unarmed robbery involving controlled substances. View "United States v. Burke" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the district court's attorneys' fee award, arguing that the entire award was arbitrary because the district court did not adequately explain its decision to cut the number of hours expended by class counsel by 25%. The underlying class action was brought by plaintiff on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers, alleging that defendants marketed James Bond DVD and Blu-ray sets as containing all the Bonds films, when in fact they failed to include two movies. The parties settled and the settlement agreement included defendants' agreement to pay attorneys' fees and cost.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the attorneys' fee award, holding that the district court's order, when read in its entirety, explained the lodestar calculation it conducted and its application of the percentage-of-recovery analysis as a cross-check for reasonableness. Therefore, the panel found that the district court adequately explained its reasoning and did not abuse its discretion. View "Johnson v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of class certification in an action challenging the procedures that the City and WSDOT uses to remove unauthorized encampments, camping equipment, and personal property left on city-owned property. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants engaged in a practice of "sweeps" that destroyed property, and violated the unreasonable seizure and due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions.The panel held that plaintiffs failed to proffer sufficient evidence and articulate a practice that was common to the claims of the proposed class in their motion for class certification. In this case, there was no evidence that every plaintiff has experienced the same challenged practice or suffered the same injury due to the implementation of the guidelines at issue. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that an alleged practice affecting each of the plaintiffs was not discernible from the record and denying certification. View "Willis v. City of Seattle" on Justia Law

The State appealed the district court's grant of federal habeas relief to petitioner, a state prisoner sentenced to death for the sexual assault, abuse, and felony murder of a four year old girl.The Ninth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2), which precludes evidentiary hearings on claims that were not developed in state court proceedings, did not prohibit the district court from considering the evidence adduced at the Martinez v. Ryan hearing to determine the merits of petitioner's underlying ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim. The panel explained that when a district court holds an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a petitioner's claim is excused from procedural default under Martinez, it may consider that same evidence to grant habeas relief on the underlying claim.The panel also held that the district court did not err in determining that the assistance provided by petitioner's counsel was constitutionally deficient where he failed to perform an adequate pretrial investigation into whether the victim's injuries were sustained during the time she was with petitioner, and petitioner has demonstrated prejudice due to counsel's failures. In regard to Count Four, this failure only affected the jury's determination that petitioner had acted intentionally or knowingly, but not his underlying guilt on the lesser included offense of reckless misconduct. Therefore, the panel affirmed the grant of habeas relief, but vacated the district court's remedy, remanding for further proceedings. View "Jones v. Shinn" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion challenging the validity of a conviction for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A).The panel held that assault with a dangerous weapon described in 18 U.S.C. 113(a)(3) is a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A). The panel explained that the least violent form of each offense is the threat to use violent physical force through the use of a dangerous weapon that reasonably caused a victim to fear immediate bodily injury, which under precedent, necessarily entails at least the threatened use of violent physical force to qualify the offenses as crimes of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s elements clause. View "United States v. Gobert" on Justia Law

A claim is subject to a bona fide dispute as to amount within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 303(b)(1) even if a portion of that claim is undisputed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy and district court's decisions holding that the MDOR lacked standing to file the involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition against debtor. Section 303(b)(1) states that petitioning creditor's claims must not be contingent or the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount. In this case, the MDOR's claim for the 2004 tax year was subject to a bona fide dispute as to amount notwithstanding debtor's concession that the deduction challenged in Audit Issue 4 was improper. However, because all other petitioning creditors have withdrawn from the proceedings, the panel remanded to the bankruptcy court to determine whether this case should be dismissed under section 303(j)(3). View "State of Montana Department of Revenue v. Blixseth" on Justia Law

A plaintiff who obtains a preliminary injunction under the All Writs Act does not qualify as a prevailing party for fee-shifting purposes by virtue of that injunction, where the order granting injunctive relief makes no mention of the merits of the plaintiff's claims.In this case, plaintiffs filed suit against the State of Hawaii and other defendants, alleging that defendants became state actors by conducting elections and that the State's involvement in the self-governance process violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because of the race-based restrictions on eligibility. Although the district court denied the injunction and this court denied a motion for an injunction pending appeal, the Supreme Court subsequently granted plaintiffs' application for an injunction under the All Writs Act.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988, holding that there was no indication that the Supreme Court's injunction order addressed the merits. Furthermore, plaintiffs sought and received a voluntary dismissal without prejudice in the district court, which was the opposite of an adjudication on the merits. Therefore, plaintiffs were not prevailing parties entitled to attorney fees. View "Makekau v. Hawaii" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying a waiver of deportation under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(H), based on the frivolous asylum application bar at 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(6). Section 1158(d)(6) states that if the Attorney General determines that an alien has knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum and the alien has received the notice under paragraph (4)(A), the alien shall be permanently ineligible for any benefits under this chapter.The panel held that the frivolous asylum application bar precluded an applicant from receiving all benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court held that the phrase "this chapter" refers to Chapter 12 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the chapter in which the section is found. Therefore, as a result of the frivolous asylum application finding, the panel held that petitioner was barred from receiving all benefits under the INA, including a waiver of deportation. View "Manhani v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision concluding that petitioner was ineligible for a waiver of removability under section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.The panel held that a noncitizen who seeks a section 237(a)(1)(H) waiver is "otherwise admissible" even though he failed to return to his country of origin for at least two years, as required by INA section 212(e). Therefore, the BIA's contrary interpretation contravened the statute's text, and petitioner was otherwise admissible for purposes of section 237(a)(1)(H) waiver notwithstanding 212(e). In this case, notwithstanding his failure to satisfy or receive a waiver of the two-year residency requirement, petitioner was admissible under several provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15). The panel remanded for the agency to use its discretion in determining whether to grant the requested waiver. View "Fares v. Barr" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging the denial of his U visa petition. The district court dismissed plaintiff's action after determining that section 701(a)(2) of the APA precluded judicial review.The Ninth Circuit held that section 701(a)(2) -- which precludes judicial review of actions "committed to agency discretion by law," where there is no judicially manageable standard by which a court can judge how the agency should exercise its discretion -- does not bar judicial review of plaintiff's APA claims. The court explained that 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U) and 8 U.S.C. 1184(p) provide meaningful standards by which to review USCIS's denial of plaintiff's U visa. Furthermore, after sua sponte consideration, the panel held that section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which bars judicial review of certain immigration decisions or action, does not strip jurisdiction over plaintiff's action. View "Perez Perez v. Wolf" on Justia Law