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

Alison Mayfield, who is deaf and communicates primarily through American Sign Language (ASL), was pulled over by officers from the City of Mesa’s Police Department (MPD) for suspected reckless driving. During the traffic stop and subsequent DUI processing, Mayfield requested an ASL interpreter but was not provided one. Instead, officers used a combination of written notes, lip-reading, and gestures to communicate with her. Mayfield was ultimately charged with DUI but pleaded guilty to reckless driving.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed Mayfield’s claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA), holding that her claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey and that she failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Mayfield appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that Mayfield’s ADA and RA claims were not barred by Heck v. Humphrey because a ruling in her favor would not necessarily imply the invalidity of her reckless driving conviction. The court found that the district court erred in considering the original DUI charges rather than the ultimate conviction for reckless driving and that the City of Mesa had not met its burden to establish the applicability of the Heck bar.On the merits, the Ninth Circuit held that the relevant question was whether the means of communication used by the officers were sufficient to allow Mayfield to effectively exchange information during the stop and arrest. The court concluded that Mayfield failed to plead sufficient facts to establish that MPD discriminated against her by not providing a reasonable accommodation. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Mayfield’s complaint without leave to amend, as amendment would be futile. View "MAYFIELD V. CITY OF MESA" on Justia Law

Gerald Ross Pizzuto, Jr., an Idaho death-row inmate, filed a lawsuit alleging that his execution by lethal injection would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Pizzuto sought discovery about the origin, manufacture, and acquisition dates of Idaho's execution protocol drugs. Idaho refused to respond, citing a state secrecy statute that protects the identity of execution drug suppliers. The district court found the information relevant and not protected by privilege, and ordered Idaho to respond to certain discovery requests, applying a "reasonable degree of certainty" standard to determine if the information would identify the drug supplier.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted Pizzuto's motion to compel discovery, finding that Idaho's secrecy statute did not create a federal evidentiary privilege and that the requested information was relevant. The court ordered Idaho to provide certain information, while allowing the state to withhold details that would, to a reasonable degree of certainty, identify the drug supplier. Idaho appealed the district court's discovery order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's order. The Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, as the discovery order fell into a narrow class of cases that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the disclosures, as Idaho failed to provide concrete examples of how the requested information would lead to the identification of the drug supplier. The court emphasized that Idaho's strong interest in enforcing its criminal laws, including the death penalty, must be considered, but found that the state did not show how its interests would be unduly burdened by the ordered discovery. View "PIZZUTO V. TEWALT" on Justia Law

A transgender student, Rebecca Roe, and the Sexuality and Gender Alliance (SAGA) at Boise High School challenged Idaho Senate Bill 1100 (S.B. 1100), which mandates that public school students use restrooms and changing facilities corresponding to their "biological sex." They argued that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, and the right to informational privacy. Roe and SAGA sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that SAGA was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims. The court found that the State's interest in protecting student privacy was an important governmental objective and that S.B. 1100 was substantially related to achieving that objective. The court also determined that SAGA did not show that the State had clear notice that Title IX prohibited segregated access to facilities based on transgender status. Additionally, the court found that SAGA did not demonstrate that S.B. 1100 violated the right to informational privacy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit agreed that SAGA did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its equal protection claim, as the State's interest in protecting bodily privacy was deemed important and the means chosen were substantially related to that objective. The court also held that SAGA failed to show that the State had clear notice that Title IX prohibited the exclusion of transgender students from facilities corresponding to their gender identity. Lastly, the court concluded that SAGA did not demonstrate that S.B. 1100 violated the right to informational privacy, as the statute did not necessarily disclose a student's transgender status. View "ROE V. CRITCHFIELD" on Justia Law

The Social Security Administration (SSA) overpaid a debtor, Cooper, before his Chapter 7 no-asset discharge in bankruptcy. Two years after his discharge, SSA recouped the overpayment by reducing his monthly benefits. Cooper moved to hold SSA in contempt for violating the bankruptcy discharge injunction.The bankruptcy court denied Cooper's motion, finding that equitable recoupment allowed SSA to recover the overpayment. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed, concluding that the overpayment and ongoing benefits were logically related as they arose from the same disability period and statutory scheme.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the logical relationship test for equitable recoupment requires consideration of the equities, including the purpose of the Bankruptcy Code. The court found that recoupment was impermissible where SSA sought to recoup overpayments from a bankrupt beneficiary who engaged in no malfeasance. The court emphasized that recoupment should only apply when it would be inequitable for the debtor to enjoy the benefits of a transaction without meeting its obligations.The Ninth Circuit reversed the BAP's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the BAP to remand to the bankruptcy court. The court clarified that the logical relationship test demands consideration of the equities and the purpose of the Bankruptcy Code in each individual case. View "COOPER V. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION" on Justia Law

In 1990, a group of California state prisoners filed a lawsuit alleging that the State of California violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide adequate mental health care in its prisons. The plaintiffs, who later achieved class certification, prevailed in a 1995 bench trial, and the State was found to be in violation of its Eighth Amendment obligations. Despite efforts to develop and implement remedial plans, the State remained noncompliant with court orders to reduce mental health care provider staffing vacancies to fixed levels.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued several orders over the years to address the staffing issues, including a 2017 order requiring the State to achieve a maximum ten percent vacancy rate for mental health care providers. By 2023, the State had not complied, leading the district court to establish a schedule of prospective fines for continued noncompliance. After finding persistent noncompliance, the district court issued final contempt findings in 2024, resulting in over $110 million in fines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision to hold the State in civil contempt. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the State failed to establish a substantial compliance defense or an impossibility defense. The court also held that the contempt fines were civil in nature and did not require criminal due process protections. However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the fines to the extent they exceeded the State’s monthly salary savings and remanded the case for additional findings and analysis regarding the exact amount of fines to be imposed. View "Coleman v. Newsom" on Justia Law

Mahsa Parviz was convicted of making a false statement on a passport application and aggravated identity theft. Parviz lost her parental rights over her biological daughter, C.P., and was permanently enjoined from contacting her. Despite this, Parviz attempted to obtain a passport for C.P. by submitting false statements, including a fraudulent letter from a nurse practitioner, Bret Allen Parker, claiming C.P. was medically unable to appear in person due to a critical condition. This letter was crucial in bypassing the requirement for C.P. to appear in person for the passport application.The United States District Court for the Central District of California convicted Parviz on both counts. Parviz argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove she "used" Parker’s identity to commit passport fraud, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Dubin v. United States. The district court denied her motion for acquittal and sentenced her to 37 months for passport fraud and 24 months for aggravated identity theft, to be served consecutively. Parviz also argued for a sentence reduction for time served in Texas for attempted kidnapping, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to show Parviz fraudulently used Parker’s identity, as the letter was central to obtaining the passport. The court also upheld the district court’s interpretation that "without lawful authority" does not require the means of identification to be used without the person’s consent. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to reduce Parviz’s sentence for time served in Texas and in imposing a special condition of supervised release prohibiting contact with C.P. View "USA V. PARVIZ" on Justia Law

Juan Carlos Enriquez, a pharmacy technician, was involved in a scheme to refer Medicare and Medi-Cal beneficiaries to pharmacies owned by his alleged co-conspirator, Irina Sadovsky, in exchange for kickbacks. Enriquez was indicted for conspiracy to receive healthcare kickbacks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and for receiving prohibited payments in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing it failed to state an offense and lacked specificity because it did not negate the statutory safe harbor for a bona fide employment relationship under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(3)(B).The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Enriquez’s motion to dismiss. Enriquez then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his pretrial motion. The district court sentenced him to one day of imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay $121,115 in restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. Enriquez argued that the principles from Ruan v. United States, which required the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant knew they were acting in an unauthorized manner under the Controlled Substances Act, should apply to the AKS. He contended that the AKS bona fide employment safe harbor should be treated as a "quasi-element" for pleading purposes. The Ninth Circuit declined to extend Ruan’s reasoning to the AKS or to pleading requirements, affirming that indictments need not allege affirmative defenses. The court held that the indictment provided sufficient detail to inform Enriquez of the charges and enable him to prepare his defense. The district court’s denial of Enriquez’s motion to dismiss was affirmed. View "USA V. ENRIQUEZ" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Nike, Inc., alleging gender discrimination and hostile workplace claims. During discovery, a collection of internal workplace complaints, known as the Starfish complaints, was produced under a protective order. Three media organizations, including The Oregonian, intervened in the case to gain access to these documents. Plaintiffs' attorney inadvertently sent confidential documents to a reporter from The Oregonian, who refused to return or destroy them upon request.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon initially granted a motion to intervene by the media organizations. However, when the inadvertent disclosure occurred, the magistrate judge ordered The Oregonian to return or destroy the documents. The district court vacated this order, reasoning that it lacked authority to compel a non-party to return the documents. The magistrate judge then denied the motion, and the district court affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court had the inherent authority to order The Oregonian, as an intervenor and thus a party to the case, to return or destroy the confidential documents. The court determined that The Oregonian did not have a First Amendment right to withhold the documents because pretrial discovery proceedings are not public components of the judicial process. The court applied relaxed First Amendment scrutiny and concluded that the district court's exercise of its inherent authority over discovery furthered a substantial government interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "CAHILL V. NIKE, INC." on Justia Law

Abelardo Rodriguez-Arvizu was arrested by U.S. Border Patrol agents on November 18, 2019, for a suspected immigration violation. During processing, an outstanding arrest warrant related to his involvement in a marijuana "rip crew" was discovered. He was subsequently arrested by FBI agents, who did not inform him of the specific charges. During the ride to the FBI office, Rodriguez-Arvizu made incriminating statements. At the FBI office, he was read his Miranda rights, and he made further statements after waiving his rights.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied Rodriguez-Arvizu's motion to suppress his statements. The court found that although the FBI agents violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(c)(3)(A) by not informing him of the charges, suppression was not warranted. The court also found no violation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, as he did not unambiguously invoke this right. Additionally, the court determined that he validly waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel despite not knowing the specific charges. Finally, the court ruled that his confession was within the safe harbor period of 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) and did not violate the McNabb-Mallory rule.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that suppression was not warranted for the Rule 4(c)(3)(A) violation, as the agents' conduct was not sufficiently deliberate or culpable. The court also agreed that Rodriguez-Arvizu did not unambiguously invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel and that he validly waived his Sixth Amendment right. The court further held that the safe harbor period began with his FBI arrest, making his confession admissible. View "USA V. RODRIGUEZ-ARVIZU" on Justia Law

Gurparas Singh, a native and citizen of India, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in the United States, claiming persecution by members of the ruling BJP party due to his involvement with the Mann political party. Singh recounted two specific incidents of persecution: one in July 2017, where BJP members threatened him while he was placing posters, and another in December 2017, where he was attacked by BJP members while returning from a blood drive. Singh entered the U.S. without valid documents in April 2018 and was charged with removability. He admitted the allegations and applied for asylum and related relief.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Singh not credible due to significant linguistic and factual similarities between his declaration and those of other asylum applicants from India, suggesting a fabricated claim. The IJ also found that Singh knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application and denied his CAT claim, concluding that the remaining evidence did not establish a likelihood of torture upon his return to India. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the IJ's findings and dismissed Singh's appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and denied Singh's petition for review. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA's adverse credibility determination, noting the identical language and narrative structure in Singh's declaration compared to other applicants. The court also found that the IJ followed proper procedural safeguards in making the frivolous application finding. Additionally, the court concluded that the denial of CAT protection was supported by substantial evidence, as Singh failed to provide sufficient individualized evidence of a likelihood of torture. View "SINGH V. BONDI" on Justia Law