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

A class of indigent criminal defendants in Oregon, who were incarcerated and awaiting trial without legal representation, filed a federal habeas corpus petition. They argued that the state's failure to provide them with counsel violated their Sixth Amendment rights. The district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring that counsel be provided within seven days of the initial appearance, and if this did not occur, the defendants must be released from custody subject to reasonable conditions imposed by Oregon Circuit Court judges.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the petitioners were likely to succeed on the merits of their Sixth Amendment claim. The court reasoned that without counsel, the petitioners could not understand, prepare for, or progress to critical stages of their cases. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the petitioners were suffering and would continue to suffer irreparable harm. The court found that the public has an interest in a functioning criminal justice system and the protection of fundamental rights. View "Betschart v. Washington County Circuit Court Judges" on Justia Law

The case involves Bristol SL Holdings, Inc., the successor-in-interest to Sure Haven, Inc., a defunct drug rehabilitation and mental health treatment center, and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company and Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc. Bristol alleged that Sure Haven's calls to Cigna verifying out-of-network coverage and seeking authorization to provide health services created independent contractual obligations. Cigna, however, denied payment based on fee-forgiving, a practice prohibited by the health plans. Bristol brought state law claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against Cigna.The district court initially dismissed Bristol’s claims, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that Bristol had derivative standing to sue for unpaid benefits as Sure Haven’s successor-in-interest. On remand, the district court granted Cigna’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted Bristol’s state law claims.On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Bristol’s state law claims were preempted by ERISA because they had both a “reference to” and an “impermissible connection with” the ERISA plans that Cigna administered. The court reasoned that Bristol’s claims were not independent of an ERISA plan because they concerned the denial of reimbursement to patients who were covered under such plans. The court also held that allowing liability on Bristol’s state law claims would interfere with nationally uniform plan administration, a central matter of plan administration. View "Bristol SL Holdings, Inc. v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Rhita Bercy, filed a hostile work environment claim against her employer, the City of Phoenix, alleging a single course of conduct that continued over a period of nearly two years. She filed her bankruptcy petition within that two-year period. The claim was based on conduct that occurred both before and after she filed her bankruptcy petition. The parties agreed that a claim based on conduct before the petition, and any damages resulting from that conduct, belonged to the bankruptcy estate. The question was whether Bercy could recover damages on that claim for alleged harm arising from discriminatory conduct that occurred after she filed for bankruptcy.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the City's motion for summary judgment, holding that Bercy lacked standing to pursue her claim. The court reasoned that because Bercy could have brought her claim at the time of her bankruptcy petition, and any subsequent damages were sufficiently rooted in prebankruptcy incidents, the entire claim belonged to the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Bercy's hostile work environment claim was sufficiently rooted in the prebankruptcy past and thus belonged to the bankruptcy estate. Therefore, only the bankruptcy trustee had standing to sue on the claim. The court clarified that the Bankruptcy Code provides a “fresh start” to the debtor at discharge, but not “a continuing license to violate the law.” View "Bercy v. City of Phoenix" on Justia Law

The case involved Chanel Wiley, who was convicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. During jury selection, Wiley's ankle monitor, which she was wearing as a condition of her pretrial release, started beeping. Wiley argued that this incident prejudiced her and warranted a new trial.The district court judge acknowledged hearing the alert but did not believe the jurors knew what the sound was. After the monitor beeped again, the judge ordered a recess and had the monitor removed outside the presence of the jury. Wiley was subsequently convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and acquitted of distributing methamphetamine.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit assumed that at least one juror concluded that the beeping sound meant Wiley was wearing an ankle monitor. However, the court held that ankle monitors are not inherently prejudicial under the standards set by previous cases, including Deck v. Missouri and Holbrook v. Flynn. The court reasoned that ankle monitors are less obtrusive and do not create the same perception of the defendant as shackles do. The court also found that Wiley failed to prove that she was actually prejudiced by the beeping ankle monitor. Therefore, the court affirmed the conviction. View "USA V. WILEY" on Justia Law

The case involves Lorain Ann Stiffler, who applied for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, claiming disability due to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, a mood disorder, right knee problems, and a processing disorder. Her application was initially denied and denied again upon reconsideration. Dr. Khosh-Chashm, who diagnosed Stiffler with major depressive disorder, concluded that she had extreme mental functioning limitations and lacked the cognitive and communicative skills required for gainful employment. However, state agency medical consultants Dr. Goldberg and Dr. Bilik disagreed, concluding that Stiffler was not disabled but had moderate limitations on her ability to carry out detailed instructions, maintain concentration, work with others, make simple work-related decisions, and complete a normal workday and workweek.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) affirmed the denial of Stiffler's application for disability benefits. The ALJ rejected Dr. Khosh-Chashm's opinion, finding it unsupported by and inconsistent with the medical evidence and Stiffler's significant daily activities. The ALJ also found no conflict between the testimony of the vocational expert and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), concluding that Stiffler could work as a marking clerk, mail clerk, or laundry worker.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, which had upheld the ALJ's decision. The court found substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's evaluation of Dr. Khosh-Chashm's medical opinion and concluded that there was no conflict between Stiffler's limitation to "an environment with few workplace changes" and the DOT's Reasoning Level 2. View "STIFFLER V. O'MALLEY" on Justia Law

In 2014, Salvatore Groppo pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the transmission of wagering information as a "sub-bookie" in an unlawful international sports gambling enterprise. He was sentenced to five years' probation, 200 hours of community service, a $3,000 fine, and a $100 special assessment. In 2022, Groppo moved to expunge his conviction, seeking relief from a potential tax liability of over $100,000 on his sports wagering activity. He argued that the tax liability was disproportionate to his relatively minor role in the criminal enterprise.The district court denied Groppo's motion to expunge his conviction. The court reasoned that expungement of a conviction is only available if the conviction itself was unlawful or otherwise invalid. The court also stated that the IRS's imposition of an excise tax does not provide grounds for relief as 'government misconduct' that would warrant expungement.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that because Groppo alleged neither an unlawful arrest or conviction nor a clerical error, the district court correctly determined that it did not have ancillary jurisdiction to grant the motion to expunge. The court explained that a district court is powerless to expunge a valid arrest and conviction solely for equitable considerations, including alleged misconduct by the IRS. View "USA V. GROPPO" on Justia Law

Ten plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit against Daniel Fitzgerald under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), alleging multiple sex trafficking violations. The government intervened and requested a stay of the litigation pending the resolution of a criminal case involving a different defendant, Peter Nygard. The district court granted the stay under a provision of the TVPRA that mandates a stay of any civil action during the pendency of any criminal action arising out of the same occurrence in which the claimant is the victim. Fitzgerald appealed the stay order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the stay order as it was lengthy and indefinite, thus effectively placing the litigants out of court. The court also held that the district court properly granted a mandatory stay under the TVPRA because a criminal action was pending, the criminal action arose out of the same occurrence as the civil action, and the plaintiffs in the civil action were victims of an occurrence that was the same in the civil and criminal proceedings. The court rejected Fitzgerald's argument that the stay should only be issued if the defendant in the civil action is a named defendant in the related criminal action. The court also held that if a stay is required under the TVPRA, then the district court must stay the entire action. View "DOE V. FITZGERALD" on Justia Law

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other environmental groups sued the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), alleging that they violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to adequately consult over whether the renewal of government water supply contracts would likely jeopardize the existence of the delta smelt and by failing to reinitiate consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the contracts’ effects on Chinook salmon. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the federal agencies complied with their obligations under the APA and ESA. The court found that FWS's consultation on the renewal of the contracts was not arbitrary and capricious, and that Reclamation did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by relying on it. The court also rejected NRDC's argument that Reclamation violated its obligations under the ESA by misinforming FWS regarding the scope of its discretion to negotiate the contracts. Finally, the court concluded that the renewed contracts did not give Reclamation the discretion to take measures that would benefit the Chinook salmon, and therefore the district court did not err in dismissing NRDC's fifth claim for relief for failure to state a claim. View "NRDC v. Haaland" on Justia Law

Ulises Romeo Lucas-Hernandez was arrested by Border Patrol Agent Brian Mauler in a remote area north of the U.S.-Mexico border. During the arrest, Agent Mauler asked Lucas-Hernandez three questions in Spanish about his citizenship and immigration status. Lucas-Hernandez was subsequently charged with misdemeanor attempted entry by an alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). Before trial, Lucas-Hernandez moved to exclude Agent Mauler from testifying to his Spanish-to-English translation of the questions and answers, arguing that the statements were hearsay and that Agent Mauler was not qualified as an expert to translate the statements. The magistrate judge denied the motion regarding hearsay, reasoning that the statements made by a defendant are considered party admissions, not hearsay.The magistrate judge found Lucas-Hernandez guilty of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1) and he was sentenced to time served. Lucas-Hernandez challenged his conviction in district court, asserting that Agent Mauler’s testimony of his field statements was hearsay and fell outside the hearsay exclusion in Rule 801(d)(2) because Agent Mauler was not a “mere language conduit” under United States v. Nazemian. The district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s ruling and found that Nazemian did not apply, and so Agent Mauler’s testimony as to Lucas-Hernandez’s field statements was not hearsay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Nazemian analysis applies to the statements of a party opponent that are translated by the testifying witness. However, the court concluded that any error in admitting Agent Mauler’s testimony was harmless, considering the evidence presented from Lucas-Hernandez’s A-file, the database searches, and the circumstances when he was found by Agent Mauler. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s ruling upholding Lucas-Hernandez’s conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). View "United States v. Lucas-Hernandez" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of disabled students who sued the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction in Washington State. The students claimed that the state's practice of discontinuing special education services at the end of the school year in which a student turns 21 violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA generally requires states to provide special education to disabled students until their 22nd birthday, but allows states to discontinue services as early as age 18 if providing special education to older students would be inconsistent with state law or practice. The students argued that because Washington offers certain adult-education programs to 21-year-olds, it should also be required to provide special education to disabled 21-year-olds.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied the students' motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the students had not shown that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. The court also concluded that the students were not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim because the adult-education programs in Washington charged a tuition fee, and therefore did not constitute "free public education."The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court held that the students had a high likelihood of success on the merits of their claim because the availability of the adult-education programs in Washington triggered an obligation under the IDEA to provide special education to disabled 21-year-olds. The court also found that the students would suffer irreparable harm from the denial of access to special education. The court concluded that the balance of hardships tipped in the students' favor and that an injunction would be in the public interest. View "N. D. V. REYKDAL" on Justia Law