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

18 U.S.C. 2423(c), which prohibits engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places, did not exceed Congress's authority under the Foreign Commerce Clause, as applied to the criminalization of non-commercial sexual abuse of a minor. The Ninth Circuit applied rational basis review and held that the elements of the crime fairly relate to foreign commerce.The panel affirmed defendant's conviction for travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, engaging in illicit sexual conduct abroad, attempted witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. The panel rejected defendant's claims of error regarding the jury instructions and claims of evidentiary error. However, the panel held that the district court miscalculated defendant's guidelines range by failing to apply an obstruction of justice enhancement under USSG 3C1.1. Therefore, the panel vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Lindsay" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized after law enforcement agents entered into defendant's condo without a warrant. The agents secured a court order authorizing insertion of a tracking device to conduct the controlled delivery, but their entry into defendant's condo to secure the package was warrantless.The panel held that the record supported the district court's decision that the agents' warrantless search was justified by exigent circumstances, defendant's subsequent consent for a more thorough search was not therefore tainted by an illegal entry, and the district court did not err by denying the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Iwai" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action brought by husband and wife, alleging civil rights violations. Plaintiffs' claims stemmed from the police seizure of firearms from their residence after detaining husband for a mental health evaluation in response to a 911 call.The panel held that that wife's Second Amendment claim was barred by issue preclusion under California law, because the California Court of Appeal had considered and rejected a Second Amendment argument identical to this one. The panel also held that the warrantless seizure of the guns did not violate the Fourth Amendment where the officers had probable cause to detain involuntarily an individual experiencing an acute mental health episode and to send the individual for evaluation, they expected the individual would have access to firearms and present a serious public safety threat if he returned to the home, and they did not know how quickly the individual might return. In this case, the urgency of a significant public safety interest was sufficient to outweigh the significant privacy interest in personal property kept in the home, and a warrant was not required. View "Rodriguez v. City of San Jose" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision dismissing petitioner's appeal from the IJ's determination that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act because he was convicted of a violation of a protection order.The panel held that the BIA's articulation in Matter of Medina-Jimenez and Matter of Obshatko, that the categorical approach does not apply to determining whether an alien's violation of a protection order under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) renders him convicted of an offense under section 1229b(b)(1)(C), is entitled to Chevron deference. The panel deferred under Chevron to the BIA's conclusion that section 1101(a)(48)(A) does not require that the underlying offense be labeled a crime as long as the proceedings are "criminal in nature" and contain "constitutional safeguards normally attendant upon a criminal adjudication." The panel also agreed with the BIA's decision that petitioner is ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, the panel upheld the BIA's decision and did not need to remand. View "Diaz-Quirazco v. Barr" on Justia Law

A defendant is eligible for attorneys' fees under the Hyde Amendment only where there is egregious prosecutorial misconduct that renders the litigating position of the United States as a whole "vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith."The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for attorneys' fees under the Hyde Amendment. In this case, defendant was not eligible for attorneys' fees because she conceded that there was no prosecutorial misconduct in her case. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The panel also affirmed the district court's denial of her motion for reconsideration. View "United States v. Mixon" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court: Is a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim a compulsory counterclaim in an action to collect the underlying debt under Rule 13 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure? View "Cutts v. Richland Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of defendant's speedy trial claim. Defendant argued that the federal government's delay in starting its criminal proceedings until the state's proceedings had concluded violated his speedy trial rights.The panel held that, because the Supreme Court directs courts to take an ad hoc, case-by-case approach to a defendant's claim that the right to a speedy trial has been violated, the panel declined to adopt a rule that delaying a trial in order to allow a concurrent judicial proceeding to conclude is a valid or neutral reason that does not weigh against the government. The panel remanded for further proceedings in this case, because it could not determine from the district court's orders whether the district court erroneously applied a bright-line rule. View "United States v. Myers" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that DOC defendants violated the Eighth Amendment rights of all prisoners with serious mental illness who are confined to the Montana State Prison.The panel held that the complaint, which describes the horrific treatment of prisoners, was supported by factual allegations more than sufficient to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In this case, the complaint alleged, among other things, that prisoners with serious mental illness are denied diagnosis and treatment of their conditions; described a distressing pattern of placing mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement for "weeks and months at a time" without significant mental health care; and alleged the frequent, improper use of this punishment for behavior arising from mental illness. Furthermore, the district court had mistaken this case for another case brought by plaintiff against a different defendant. Therefore, the panel remanded for further proceedings and reassigned the case to a different district court judge. View "Disability Rights Montana v. Batista" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action brought by independent presidential candidate Roque De La Fuente challenging two California ballot access laws, Cal. Elec. Code 8400, 8403. These Ballot Access Laws require independent candidates to collect signatures from one percent of California's registered voters to appear on a statewide ballot.The panel held that De La Fuente had standing because he suffered a concrete injury that was not merely speculative. On the merits, the panel held that California's overall scheme did not significantly impair ballot access. Rather, the laws were generally applicable, even-handed, politically neutral, and aimed at protecting the reliability and integrity of the election process. The panel also held that the Ballot Access Laws reasonably relate to California's important regulatory interests in managing its democratic process and are proportionate to California's large voter population. View "De La Fuente v. Padilla" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's order denying his untimely motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Petitioner alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his removal proceedings. The BIA agreed that petitioner's prior counsel performed deficiently, but denied the motion to reopen after concluding that he failed to show prejudice.The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review with respect to petitioner's claims for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and relief under former 8 U.S.C. 212(c). The panel held that the BIA analyzed petitioner's new prejudice evidence under standards more stringent than were proper. Although the more-likely-than-not standard governs the merits of a CAT claim, in the context of a motion to reopen for ineffective assistance, the petitioner need not show that he would win or lose on any claims. Rather, the question with respect to prejudice is whether counsel's deficient performance may have affected the outcome of the proceedings, which means that the petitioner need only show plausible grounds for relief. The panel denied the petition for review with respect to all other claims and held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Flores v. Barr" on Justia Law