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

The Ninth Circuit held that petitioner's conviction under Oregon Revised Statute 163.187(1) for "strangulation" was categorically a crime of violence for purposes of removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The panel also held that the BIA abused its discretion in designating petitioner's offense of conviction as a "particularly serious crime."The panel denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision because petitioner failed to carry his burden of showing eligibility for withholding of removal or for protection under the Convention Against Torture; and the BIA's denial of petitioner's application for relief was supported by substantial evidence. View "Flores-Vega v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit held that the parents of a U.S. citizen killed during a military operation conducted by a foreign nation abroad may not sue the foreign official responsible for the operation in federal court on different theories of wrongful death claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act. The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action and held that defendant was entitled to foreign official immunity where his acts were performed in his official capacity, where the sovereign government has ratified his conduct, and where the U.S. Department of State has asked the judiciary to grant him foreign official immunity.The panel need not decide the level of deference owed to the State Department's suggestion of immunity in this case, because even if the suggestion of immunity is afforded "substantial weight" rather than "absolute deference," defendant would still be entitled to immunity. The panel explained that exercising jurisdiction over defendant would be to enforce a rule of law against the sovereign state of Israel, and that defendant would therefore be entitled to common-law foreign sovereign immunity. Even if defendant was entitled to common law immunity, the panel held that Congress has abrogated common law foreign official immunity via the TVPA. View "Dogan v. Barak" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified the following questions of state law to the California Supreme Court: 1) Does the absence of a formal policy regarding meal and rest breaks violate California law? 2) Does an employer's failure to keep records for meal and rest breaks taken by its employees create a rebuttable presumption that the meal and rest breaks were not provided? View "Cole v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc." on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order denying defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. Defendant alleged that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a notice of appeal. In this case, the government never had the opportunity to challenge defendant's assertion, because both the district court's and this court's prior rulings held that the collateral attack waiver nonetheless barred the section 2255 motion.Therefore, the panel held that the district court, on remand, should determine whether defendant expressly instructed his attorney to file a notice of appeal, and if not, whether counsel failed to consult, and if so, whether that failure constituted deficient performance. View "United States v. Fabian-Baltazar" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's finding that he "frequented" a prohibited place in violation of a special condition of his supervised release. The special condition was imposed, along with other special conditions, after defendant pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography. The district court concluded that defendant violated his special condition by watching a pornographic movie at an adult store.The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in finding that defendant frequented a prohibited place, because defendant visited an adult store only once. The panel affirmed in part, holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the special condition was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, because the condition was not meaningfully distinguishable from a condition the panel approved in United States v. Gnirke, 775 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015), and properly abridged defendant's right to free speech in order to effectively address his sexual deviance problem. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Ochoa" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action brought by a coalition of tribal, regional, and national conservation organizations who sued the government and others, challenging agency actions that reauthorized coal mining activities on land reserved to the Navajo Nation.The panel held that NTEC was a legally protected interest in the subject matter of this litigation, and that proceeding with the suit in NTEC's absence impaired that interest. Because no other party to the litigation could adequately represent NTEC's interests, the panel held that the district court did not err by determining that NTEC was a party that must be joined if feasible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a). Furthermore, the district court properly concluded that NTEC was an "arm" of the Navajo Nation that enjoyed the Nation's immunity from suit and could not be joined to this action. The panel applied the Rule 19(b) factors and held that the district court did not err in concluding that the litigation could not, in good conscience, continue in NTEC's absence. Finally, the panel rejected the request to apply the public rights exception. View "Dine Citizens Against Ruining our Environment v. Bureau of Indian Affairs" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for plaintiffs in an action brought under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) against Commissioners of the California Public Utilities Commission. In order to regulate terms under which electric utilities purchase power from Qualifying Cogeneration Facilities (QFs), the Commission established the Renewable Market Adjusting Tariff (Re-MAT) program.The panel held that Re-Mat violates PURPA's requirements, because it caps the amount of energy utilities are required to purchase from QFs and because it sets a market-based rate, rather than one based on the utilities' avoided cost. Because California did not offer a PURPA-complaint alternative, the panel held that PURPA preempts Re-Mat. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by fashioning equitable relief when it declined to award plaintiffs preferred remedy of a particular contract. View "Winding Creek Solar, LLC v. Peterman" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a Guam resident who challenged a provision of Guam's 2000 Plebiscite Law that restricted voting to "Native Inhabitants of Guam." Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000), and Davis v. Commonwealth Election Comm'n, 844 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2016), respectively invalidated laws in Hawaii and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands limiting voting in certain elections to descendants of particular indigenous groups because those provisions employed ancestry as a proxy for race in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment.The panel held that Guam's 2000 Plebiscite Law is subject to the requirements of the Fifteenth Amendment, and that the classification "Native Inhabitants of Guam" serves as a proxy for race. Therefore, Guam's limitations on the right to vote in its political status plebiscite to "Native Inhabitants of Guam" violates the Fifteenth Amendment. View "Davis v. Guam" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of class certification in an action brought by plaintiff against Nissan, under state and federal warranty laws, arising from an allegedly faulty hydraulic clutch system in plaintiff's 2012 Nissan vehicle.The panel held that, following Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013), plaintiff's theory of liability—that Nissan's manufacture and concealment of a defective clutch system injured class members at the time of sale—is consistent with his proposed recovery based on the benefit of the bargain. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion when it denied class certification based on a misconception of plaintiff's legal theory. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas corpus relief challenging petitioner's Arizona state murder conviction and death penalty. Applying deferential review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the panel held that the district court properly held that petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated when his trial counsel elected not to challenge petitioner's competency to waive counsel, despite counsel's knowledge that he had a history of mental health issues; the district court properly concluded that petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the state trial court's failure to hold a competency hearing sua sponte; and the district court properly held that the Arizona Supreme Court's opinion concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's final continuance motion was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.The panel expanded the certificate of appealability (COA) to include the question of whether petitioner's constitutional rights were violated at trial through use of restraints, but affirmed the denial of the writ on that issue. The panel declined to expand the COA further. View "Dixon v. Ryan" on Justia Law