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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action brought by plaintiff under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging the U.S. Consulate's denial of his visa application filed on behalf of his wife, who is a native and citizen of Germany. Determining that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability did not strip the district court of that jurisdiction, the panel held that the APA provides no avenue for review of a consular officer's adjudication of a visa on the merits. The panel explained that, rather, the only standard by which it could review the merits of a consular officer's denial of a visa was for constitutional error, where the visa application was denied without a facially legitimate and bona fide reason. In this case, the consular officer's citations to the Immigration and Nationality Act and identification of the wife's criminal history constituted facially legitimate and bona fide reasons for rejecting her visa application. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court's denial of the petition for writ of mandamus. View "Allen v. Milas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants violated his Second Amendment right to carry a loaded firearm in public for self defense by denying his application for a firearms license. The Ninth Circuit held that, while the concealed carry of firearms categorically fell outside Second Amendment protection, the Second Amendment encompassed a right to carry a firearm openly in public for self defense. Therefore, H.R.S. 134-restricted plaintiff in exercising such right and thus burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment. The panel held that Hawaii's limitation on the open carry of firearms to those engaged in the protection of life and property violated the core of the Second Amendment and was void under any level of scrutiny. The panel explained that restricting open carry to those whose job entail protecting life or property necessarily restricts open carry to a small and insulated subset of law-abiding citizens, and the typical, law-abiding citizen in the state was entirely foreclosed from exercising the core Second Amendment right to bear arms for self defense. View "Young v. Hawaii" on Justia Law

There is no presumption of public access under the First Amendment or common law that attaches to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) subpoena applications and their supporting materials. Accordingly, parties can only justify accessing sealed or in camera Rule 17(c) subpoenas, subpoena applications, and supporting documents by demonstrating a "special need." The Ninth Circuit held that, in this case, defendant failed to demonstrate a special need for his codefendant's Rule 17(c) subpoena materials, and that there was a continuing need to seal them. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the denial of defendant's motion. View "United States v. Sleugh" on Justia Law

The anti-discrimination prohibition in the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (ACAA) is not enforceable through an implied private cause of action. The ACCA prohibits air carriers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of a physical or mental impairment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim against Southwest that alleged a violation of the ACCA. The panel joined the Second, Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits in concluding that, in light of the ACAA's statutory structure, Congress did not intend to create a private cause of action under the ACAA. Therefore, plaintiff's claim was properly dismissed. View "Segalman v. Southwest Airlines Co." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's determination that petitioner's conviction for felony child endangerment constituted a crime of child abuse that rendered him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Petitioner's conviction of felony child endangerment under California Penal Code 273a(a) was for driving under the influence with a child in his car who was not wearing a seat belt. The panel held that the Board's interpretation of a crime of child abuse, neglect or abandonment in Matter of Velazquez-Herrera, 24 I. & N. Dec. 503 (BIA 2008), and Matter of Soram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 2010), was entitled to Chevron deference. Applying that definition in this instance, the panel held that petitioner's California conviction was a categorical match to the crime of child abuse, neglect, or abandonment. Furthermore, the Board's interpretation applied retroactively to Martinez-Cedillo's 2008 conviction, which occurred before the Board's decisions in Velazquez-Herrera and Soram. View "Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for theft of mail by a postal employee and possession of stolen mail. The panel held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on due process grounds based on the government's failure to preserve a video of a Postal Service employee parking lot. In this case, the investigating agent did not act in bad faith and the exculpatory value of the video was speculative. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to instruct the jury on lost or destroyed evidence as a sanction for the government's failure to preserve the parking lot video; a conversation between the prosecutor and two investigating agents outside the courtroom did not violate Fed. R. Evid. 615; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for production of an agent's notes under the Jencks Act; and the district court did not err by adopting a jury instruction on embezzlement of mail by a postal employee. View "United States v. Robertson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied the government's petition for a writ of mandamus, asking the court to direct the district court to dismiss a case seeking various environmental remedies, or to stay all discovery and trial. The court denied the government's first mandamus petition, concluding that it had not met the high bar for relief at that stage of the litigation. The court held that no new circumstances justified the second petition where the government failed to satisfy the Bauman factors at this stage of the litigation, because the government's fear of burdensome or improper discovery did not warrant mandamus relief in the absence of a single specific discovery order; the government's arguments as to the violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the separation of powers failed to establish that they would suffer prejudice not correctable in a future appeal; and the merits of the case could be resolved by the district court or in a future appeal. View "United States v. United States District Court for the District of Oregon" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The panel held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress where, although the underlying warrant for defendant's arrest was the product of judicial abandonment, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was applicable. In this case, the officers executing the infirm warrant were unaware, and had no reason to be, of any judicial misconduct. The panel also held that the district court properly barred defendant's necessity defense because he failed to adequately demonstrate that he took possession of the gun in response to an imminent threat of death or bodily injury. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an amended habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 as time-barred. Petitioner filed an amended habeas petition eight months after the statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) had run. The panel held that the facts set out in the state court order were not clearly incorporated into petitioner's original petition, and Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States precluded the panel from construing the petition as incorporating such facts. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that the amended petition could not relate back to the claims in his original petition. View "Ross v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Taco Bell in a putative class action alleging that employees should be compensated under California law for the time spent on the company's premises eating discounted meals during meal breaks. As a preliminary matter, the panel held that plaintiff's dismissal with prejudice created a valid final judgment for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. On the merits, the panel held that Taco Bell did not violate California Wage Order 5–2001, because the employees were free to use the thirty minutes in any way they wished, subject only to the restriction that if they purchased a discounted meal, they had to eat it in the restaurant. The panel held that Taco Bell’s meal policy satisfied the standard set forth in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513 (Cal. 2012), because the company relieved employees of all duty and relinquished control over their activities. Even assuming the regular rate claim was not completely derivative of plaintiff's meal break claim and referred to overtime hours worked apart from meal breaks, and even assuming further that the value of the meal could be considered part of her compensation, she has not established that value. View "Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp." on Justia Law