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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining California Department of Public Health officials from enforcing the California Medical Waste Management Act (MWMA). The preliminary injunction enjoined Department officials from enforcing the Act on Daniels for the manner in which it disposed of medical waste at facilities outside of the State of California. The panel held that Daniels will likely succeed on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claim. Furthermore, the panel held that Department officials were entitled to qualified immunity because Daniels' constitutional rights under the dormant Commerce Clause were not clearly established at the time of the violation. Therefore, the panel reversed the denial of Department officials' motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. View "Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Smith" on Justia Law

After the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria asked the BIA to take a parcel of land into trust for them so that they could build a casino and hotel complex, the BIA agreed to the acquisition. Several entities, including the Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community and various citizens' groups and individuals filed suit seeking to enjoin the trust acquisition. On appeal, Citizens and Colusa raised numerous statutory, regulatory, and procedural challenges to the trust acquisition. The Ninth Circuit held, among other things, that Interior had the statutory authority under the Indian Reorganization Act to take land into trust for Enterprise; the Secretary properly considered Enterprise's "need" for the land; Interior's incorrect legal description of the parcel in the Federal Register was a trivial error; the panel rejected challenges based on the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; and the panel rejected challenges to the National Environmental Policy Act. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Enterprise. View "Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Zinke" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for attempting to smuggle ammunition from the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 554(a), and the revocation of defendant's supervised release from a prior conviction. The panel held that the district court did not err in overruling defendant's objections at trial to the jury instructions and the prosecutor's closing argument, because section 554 did not require the government to prove that the defendant knew the nature of the "merchandise, article, or object" that the defendant was exporting contrary to law. View "United States v. Rivero" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's determination that petitioner was ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA). When petitioner applied for NACARA special rule cancellation, the BIA interpreted the physical presence requirement as running from petitioner's most recent disqualifying conviction, rather than his earliest, and so held him ineligible for NACARA cancellation of removal. The panel held that the BIA's determination of NACARA was reasonable and was therefore entitled to deference. View "Campos-Hernandez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action alleging the warrantless seizure of 18 pigeons, a crow, and a seagull. All 18 pigeons were subsequently euthanized. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against the officers and dismissal of the state law claims; vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim challenging the seizure of the birds because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether plaintiff's healthy-looking birds posed any meaningful risk to the other birds or humans at the time they were seized; instructed the district court to consider in the first instance whether the officers were nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because any constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time it was committed; and vacated summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claim against the city and instructed the district court to consider in the first instance whether plaintiff should be allowed to add a new theory of Monell liability at this stage in the proceedings. View "Recchia v. Los Angeles Department of Animal Services" on Justia Law

After a pretrial detainee passed away, his successor-in-interest filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violation of the decedent's right to adequate medical care under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit held that, given developments in Section 1983 jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court's decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), and the panel's en banc decision in Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016), the proper standard of review for such claims was one of objective indifference, not subjective indifference. Accordingly, the panel vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gordon v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release after he committed two violations of a condition that he possess and use only those computers and computer-related devices he had disclosed to his supervising officer. The panel held that the probation office did not unreasonably delay the initiation of a petition for revocation of supervised release in this matter as defendant caused the delay by obstructing the probation office's investigation of the conduct leading to the filing of the petition for revocation; the Fifth Amendment did not apply to law enforcement questions to defendant about his compliance with the terms and conditions of supervision; and defendant violated the computer "use" condition of supervised release when he availed himself of the functions of an undisclosed device. View "United States v. Misraje" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Westside in an action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The panel held that Westside, a defendant who buys real property at a tax sale, did not have a "contractual relationship" with the previous owner of the property within the meaning of CERCLA. The panel reasoned that the previous owner caused contamination "in connection with" its contractual relationship with Westside and thus Westside was not entitled to CERCLA's third-party defense. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Cal. DTSC v. Westside Delivery, LLC" on Justia Law

The 90-day period referenced in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) begins when the aggrieved person is given notice of the right to sue by the EEOC. Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, GME, ultimately alleging claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff's Title VII claims may be based on alleged acts occurring after she filed her first administrative charge only to the extent such acts are part of a single unlawful employment practice. In this case plaintiff's claims based on her first administrative charge were timely, but claims based on a second administrative charge were untimely. The panel explained that plaintiff could base her Title VII claims on GME's alleged acts occurring after she filed her first administrative charge to the extent she could show such acts were part of a single hostile work environment claim. The panel affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment only as to claims based on discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts occurring after plaintiff filed her first administrative charge. The panel otherwise reversed and remanded. View "Scott v. Gino Morena Enterprises, LLC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted the Board's petition for enforcement and denied Casino Pauma's petition for review. The panel upheld the Board's conclusion that it may apply the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to the relationship between employees working in commercial gaming establishments on tribal lands and the tribal governments that own and manage the establishments, and that Casino Pauma committed unfair labor practices in violation of the NLRA by trying to stop union literature distribution. The panel also held that the Board permissibly applied the rule regarding employee solicitation established in Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 798 (1945), to customer-directed union literature distribution. In this case, the Board's conclusion that Casino Pauma violated its employees' NLRA right to distribute union literature was adequately supported, both by the applicable legal principles and the record. View "Casino Pauma v. NLRB" on Justia Law