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

Defendant appealed a special condition of his anticipated release restricting his relationship with his family. Defendant and his son were convicted and sentenced for defrauding the government through their business venture. The condition stated that defendant was permitted to have contact with his son only for normal familial relations but was prohibited from any contact, discussion, or communication concerning financial or investment matters except matters limited to defendant's own support.The Ninth Circuit reversed in part and held that the condition was unconstitutionally vague and struck the offending words "only for normal familial relations" from the condition. The panel held that the phrase was susceptible to many different interpretations and the district court could have, instead, specifically said that defendant and his son were prohibited from participating in illegal activities together. View "United States v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the sheriff in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the sheriff violated plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to provide him with a bed during his three-and-a-half day stay at an inmate reception center (IRC). The panel held that the exigent circumstance of inmate disturbances and lockdowns justified denying plaintiff a bed for his three-and-a-half day stay.Even if a Fourteenth Amendment violation did occur, the district court correctly held that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity because the right asserted by plaintiff—not being forced to sleep on the floor during a jail lockdown—was not clearly established at the time of the events. Finally, plaintiff failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in rejecting his various ancillary claims. View "Olivier v. Baca" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for unlawful reentry into the United States after removal and remanded for resentencing. The Supreme Court has held that courts must consider both a crime's statutory elements and sentencing factors when determining whether an offense is punishable by a certain term of imprisonment. At issue was whether defendant's earlier offense was punishable under Washington by more than one year.The panel held that it can no longer follow its earlier precedents that eschewed consideration of mandatory sentencing factors. The panel held that Washington statutes prescribe a required sentencing range that binds the sentencing court. In this case, defendant's offense—as actually prosecuted and adjudicated—was punishable under Washington law by no more than six months in prison. Therefore, the district court erred by concluding that his offense was punishable by more than one year in prison. View "United States v. Valencia-Mendoza" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, makers of vitamin E supplements, in an action alleging that the labels on the supplements violated California laws against false advertising. The panel held that section 343-1(a)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) expressly preempts state law requirements for claims about dietary supplements that differ from the FDCA's requirements. In this case, the panel held that section 343-1(a)(5) preempted most of plaintiff's claims.The panel held that because the FDCA and California law have the same labeling requirement with respect to failing to disclose an increased risk of death, section 343-1(a)(5) did not preempt this part of plaintiff's action. The panel held that the record lacked evidence that vitamin E supplements were actually harmful, as opposed to simply useless at reducing all-cause mortality (which they did not claim to reduce). Therefore, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants' immune-health structure/function claim was misleading. View "Dachauer v. NBTY, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm, aggravated identity theft, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant raised a claim of duress, contending that she purchased the handgun with her identical twin sister's ID in violation of her probation because her ex-boyfriend threatened to harm her and her family.The panel joined the weight of authority in holding that expert testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome may be used by a defendant to support her duress defense and rehabilitate her credibility. Therefore, the panel held that the district court committed legal error in precluding defendant's expert witness from testifying and concluded that this decision was prejudicial to her defense. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a video of defendant's entire jail interview. View "United States v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against social workers under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and DSHS for negligence after two young boys were murdered by their father during a social-worker-supervised visit during dependency proceedings brought by DSHS. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the social workers, holding that there was insufficient evidence to show that the social workers recognized, or should have recognized, an objective substantial risk that the father would physically harm his sons. In this case, the social workers did not act with deliberate indifference to the boys' liberty interests and they were entitled to qualified immunity.The panel reversed the district court's dismissal of the negligence claims against DSHS, holding that material issues of fact existed regarding whether DSHS used reasonable care to avoid placing the boys in harm's way and whether DSHS's actions proximately caused the boys to be placed in harm's way. View "Cox v. Washington" on Justia Law

Although California Penal Code 211 robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F), section 211 robbery nevertheless qualifies as a generic theft offense under section 1101(a)(43)(G), and thus is an aggravated felony under 18 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions for illegal reentry where defendants were each convicted under section 211 and deported to Mexico after their prison terms were completed. View "United States v. Martinez-Hernandez" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for drug and firearms offenses. In this case, defendant was stopped while driving and subjected to a warrantless search of his person and car. A year later, a separate investigation linked defendant with a controlled substances distribution and the police conducted a warrant search of his home.The panel held that the search of defendant's person was constitutional based on the search incident to a lawful arrest exception to the warrant requirement. The panel reasoned that the justifications for the search incident to lawful arrest exception do not lose any of their force in the context of a search performed by an officer who has probable cause to arrest and shortly thereafter does arrest. So long as the search was incident to and preceding a lawful arrest—which is to say that probable cause to arrest existed and the search and arrest are roughly contemporaneous—the arresting officer's subjective crime of arrest need not have been the crime for which probable cause existed. The panel held that Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998), does not prevent a search incident to a lawful arrest from occurring before the arrest itself, even if the crime of arrest is different from the crime for which probable cause existed.The panel also held that the search of the defendant's vehicle was justified under the automobile exception and the warrant to search the house was valid. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a sentencing enhancement for the use of body armor during the commission of the offense. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Fannie Mae is not a consumer reporting agency within the meaning of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs in an action brought under the FCRA, alleging that Fannie Mae falsely communicated to potential mortgage lenders, via its proprietary software, called Desktop Underwriter, that plaintiffs had a prior foreclosure on a mortgage account. In light of the Federal Trade Commission's guidelines, the panel held that Fannie Mae was not a consumer reporting agency because it did not regularly engage in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer information. Furthermore, Fannie Mae did not act with the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties. The panel also vacated the award of attorney's fees and costs to plaintiffs. View "Zabriskie v. Federal National Mortgage Association" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm while being an alien unlawfully in the United States. The panel assumed without deciding that unlawful aliens in the United States held some degree of rights under the Second Amendment and held that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) is constitutional under intermediate scrutiny. The panel held that the government's interests in controlling crime and ensuring public safety are promoted by keeping firearms out of the hands of unlawful aliens—who are subject to removal, are difficult to monitor due to an inherent incentive to falsify information and evade law enforcement, and have already shown they are unable or unwilling to conform their conduct to the laws of this country. View "United States v. Manuel Torres" on Justia Law