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

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and capital sentence for first degree murder and rape of a fifteen year old girl. The Ninth Circuit applied the habeas standards in effect prior to the implementation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996; petitioner's numerous ineffective assistance of counsel claims, governed by Strickland v. Washington, were unavailing because he did not show that trial counsel's performance fell below an objective reasonableness standard at the time of the trial in 1987; petitioner failed to show prejudice in the few instances where counsel's performance was deficient; and petitioner's conflict of interest claim under Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 171 (2002), were unpersuasive.However, the panel held that the issue of juror misconduct must be remanded to the district court in light of the panel's recent decision in Godoy v. Spearman, 861 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The panel otherwise denied habeas relief and affirmed the district court's denial of evidentiary hearings for all claims. View "Clark v. Chappell" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging that his supervisors violated 42 U.S.C. 1985(2) by conspiring to deter him from testifying in a colleague's and his own civil rights cases. The district court relied on David v. United States, 820 F.2d 1038 (9th Cir. 1987), which held that only parties to the initial case who were hampered in being able to present an effective case can show injury sufficient to bring a section 1985(2) claim.The panel held that David has been abrogated by subsequent controlling Supreme Court authority to the extent that it limits section 1985(2) claims on statutory standing and injury grounds in conflict with Haddle v. Garrison, 525 U.S. 121, 126 (1998); David's limitations are irreconcilable with Haddle's proclamation that intimidation or retaliation against witnesses in federal court proceedings constitute the gist of the wrong at which the statute is directed; and, like its sister circuits have recognized, the panel held that this expanded view of section 1985(2) aligns with the Supreme Court's broad reading of the Reconstruction civil rights acts like section 1985. In light of Haddle, the panel held that the district court's reasons for granting summary judgment in this case were no longer viable. View "Head v. Wilkie" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit filed an amended opinion affirming a conviction for knowingly possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1); denied a petition for panel rehearing; and denied a petition for rehearing en banc.The panel held that the district court correctly refused to instruct the jury that, to convict, they had to find that defendant knew that his firearm was manufactured after 1898. In this case, defendant did not dispute the government's evidence that his gun could not have been manufactured before 1915, and he offered no evidence that he reasonably believed that the gun was manufactured before 1898. Therefore, the panel held that defendant failed to meet his burden of production to put the antique firearm affirmative defense at issue, and his sufficiency of the evidence argument failed as well. The panel also held that, at a minimum, the prior convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and being a felon in possession of ammunition proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had the knowledge required by Rehaif v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), and that any error in not instructing the jury to make such a finding did not affect defendant's substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial. Finally, the confrontation clause error was harmless. View "United States v. Benamor" on Justia Law

Derivative beneficiaries of an alien entrepreneur in the immigrant investor program (EB-5 program), who receive conditional legal permanent resident status (LPR), are entitled to the same review rights in removal proceedings as the alien entrepreneur. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit held that, in removal proceedings, an IJ's failure to review the denial of an I-829 petition (even though the alien is a beneficiary of the petition) is error.In this case, the BIA erred in failing to review the denial of the petition of petitioner's father. The panel also held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's request for a continuance and motion to reconsider. Accordingly, the panel granted in part and denied in part petitioner's petitions for review of the BIA's decision. View "Hui Ran Mu v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and filed this superseding opinion in its place.The panel affirmed the district court's order granting police officers' motion for summary judgment in an action brought by plaintiffs, alleging that the officers violated plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when the officers stole plaintiffs' property during the execution of a search and seizure pursuant to a warrant. The panel held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. View "Jessop v. City of Fresno" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Marriott in state court, alleging that Marriott failed to compensate its employees for wages and missed meal breaks and failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements. Marriott then removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's sua sponte remand to state court, affirming three principles that apply in CAFA removal cases. First, a removing defendant's notice of removal need not contain evidentiary submissions but only plausible allegations of the jurisdictional elements. Second, when a defendant's allegations of removal jurisdiction are challenged, the defendant's showing on the amount in controversy may rely on reasonable assumptions. Third, when a statute or contract provides for the recovery of attorneys' fees, prospective attorneys' fees must be included in the assessment of the amount in controversy. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings in this case to allow the parties to present evidence and argument on the amount in controversy. View "Argelia Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he was convicted of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. The panel held that defendant's prior Minnesota conviction for aiding and abetting simple robbery qualifies as a predicate violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act's force clause because the minimum force required to sustain a Minnesota simple robbery includes the amount of force necessary to overcome a victim’s resistance. The panel noted that its prior distinction between "substantial" and "minimal" force in the robbery context under the Act could not be reconciled with the Supreme Court's holding in Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019). View "Ward v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his children filed suit against the County, the Agency, and others, alleging 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Monell claims stemming from a child welfare investigation undertaken by defendants that allegedly violated plaintiff and his children's First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the claims as insufficiently pleaded or barred by qualified immunity.The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff's first amended complaint (FAC) failed to plausibly allege Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Monell claims. However, the panel held that plaintiff pleaded a plausible First Amendment claim where he alleged that he engaged in protected activity, that the alleged retaliation would objectively have had a chilling effect and that retaliation was the but-for motive for the social worker's actions. Furthermore, the social worker was not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable official would know that taking the serious step of threatening to terminate a parent’s custody of his children, when the official would not have taken this step absent her retaliatory intent, violates the First Amendment. Therefore, defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Capp v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for engaging in a monetary transaction of over $10,000 derived from a specified unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956. In this case, defendant, a citizen of South Korea employed at a government-funded research institute, solicited and received payments from two seismometer manufacturers in exchange for ensuring that the research institute purchased their products, and gave the companies inside information about their competitors.The panel held that "bribery of a public official" in section 1956 is defined by that phrase's ordinary, contemporary, common meaning and is not constrained by 18 U.S.C. 201, a statute to which section 1956 makes no reference. Because the panel found the crime described in Article 129 of the South Korean Criminal Code fits comfortably within the ordinary meaning of "bribery of a public official" as used in section 1956, the panel held that the indictment was sufficient and that there was no instructional error. View "United States v. Heon-Cheol Chi" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Freedom of Information Act's (FOIA) reading room provision requires APHIS to post all of the documents at issue, because they are "frequently requested." Plaintiffs also alleged that APHIS must affirmatively disclose inspection reports, Letters of Information, official warning letters, and pre-litigation settlement agreements for the additional reason that these records constitute final agency orders. The district court dismissed the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Determining that plaintiffs have standing, the Ninth Circuit reversed in part.Looking to text, structure, and precedent, the panel held that 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) vests in district courts the jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. The panel held that section 552(a)(4)(B) provided district courts with the authority to order an agency to post records in an online reading room. The panel left it to the district court on remand to decide in the first instance whether plaintiffs have exhausted their reading room claim, or whether such exhaustion would be futile. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act claims. View "Animal Legal Defense Fund V. USDA" on Justia Law