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

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal on summary judgment of plaintiff's action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted summary judgment based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as a "prisoner" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). The panel held, however, that a plaintiff, like the one here, who was in custody at the time he initiated his suit but was free when he filed his amended operative complaint was not a "prisoner" subject to a PLRA exhaustion defense. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Fong" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the IJ's decision denying his motion to suppress evidence of his alienage and ordering his removal. The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review, holding that the Coast Guard officers committed an egregious Fourth Amendment violation and violated an immigration regulation because they seized him based on his Latino ethnicity alone; the IJ erred in failing to suppress the Form I-213, but the panel did not reach the question of the Family Unity Benefits and Employment Authorization applications; and because petitioner has shown that the Government violated its own regulation that was designed to benefit petitioner, and that petitioner was prejudiced by the violation, his removal proceedings must be terminated. View "Sanchez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

In order to be eligible for the safe harbor protection of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. 512(c), the defendant must show that the photographs at issue were stored at the direction of the user. The Ninth Circuit filed an amended opinion reversing the district court's holding, on summary judgment, that defendant was protected by the safe harbor of the DMCA from liability for posting plaintiff's photographs online and vacating a discovery order. The panel held that the common law of agency applied to safe harbor defenses and that, in this case, there were genuine factual disputes regarding whether the moderators are LiveJournal's agents. The panel addressed the remaining elements of the safe harbor defense and vacated the district court's order denying discovery of the moderators' identities. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Mavrix Photographs, LLC v. LiveJournal, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and remanded with instructions to vacate defendant's sentence. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), finding that defendant had five convictions that qualified as violent felonies. However, the district court failed to specify whether it found each of those convictions qualified under the residual clause of the statute, the force clause, or both. In this case, the panel held that defendant's new 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion relied on the rule announced in Johnson v. United States (Johnson II), 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2563 (2015), and thus he may bring his motion under one of the narrow exceptions to the bar on second or successive section 2255 motions. The panel also held that any reliance by the sentencing court on the now-invalidated residual clause of ACCA was not harmless, because at least three of his convictions did not qualify as violent felonies under any of the remaining valid ACCA clauses. Because defendant has already been in prison longer than the statutory maximum sentence for a non-ACCA-enhanced conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the district shall direct that defendant be released from custody immediately. View "United States v. Geozos" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights when a deputy used a leg sweep maneuver after plaintiff refused to drop water balloons he was carrying. The Ninth Circuit reversed the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and vacated the damages award. The panel held that, although the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict, the deputy was entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time the incident occurred, the law was not clearly established that an officer cannot progressively increase his use of force from verbal commands, to an arm grab, and then a leg sweep maneuver when a misdemeanant refuses to comply with the officer's orders and resists, obstructs, or delays the officer in his lawful performance of duties such that the officer has probable cause to arrest him in a challenging environment. View "Shafer v. County of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's requested jury instruction. The panel reversed the sentence, however, holding that California Health & Safety Code section 11378 is a divisible statute that was susceptible to the modified categorical approach. Using the modified categorical approach, the government failed to prove that defendant had pleaded guilty to violating a controlled-substance element under section 11378 that was encompassed by the federal definition for "felony drug offense," 21 U.S.C. 802(44). The panel remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Ocampo-Estrada" on Justia Law

Pursuant to In re M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474, 480 (B.I.A. 2011), if an applicant shows indicia of incompetency, the IJ has an independent duty to determine whether the applicant is competent. In this case, petitioner sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from the IJ's denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Ninth Circuit granted the petition, holding that the IJ erred by failing to determine whether procedural safeguards were required after petitioner showed signs of mental incompetency. Furthermore, the BIA abused its discretion by failing to explain why it allowed the IJ to disregard In re M-A-M-'s rigorous procedural requirements. The panel remanded to the BIA with instructions to remand to the IJ for a new hearing consistent with In re M-A-M-. View "Mejia v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Quinault Indian Nation filed suit against defendants for engaging in a scheme to defraud the Nation of taxes. After the Nation asked the district court to dismiss the action, Edwards' Estate sought to keep the litigation alive in order to litigate counterclaims against the Nation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the counterclaims as barred by the Nation's sovereign immunity. The panel explained that if Edward's Estate had brought its claims in a separate suit against the Nation, the suit could not proceed. In this case, the counterclaims did not change the sovereign-immunity analysis. The Nation did not waive tribal sovereign immunity where filing suit did not result in wholesale waiver; the nation has not waived immunity to individual counterclaims; and the estate has not asserted a counterclaim for recoupment. The panel also held that the district court properly denied the Estate's motion for leave to amend. View "Quinault Indian Nation v. Pearson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of an action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a former inmate was psychologically traumatized as a result of being compelled to undergo sexual shame therapy at a Hawaii correctional facility. The panel applied Simmons v. United States, 805 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1986), and held that the district court erred in denying as futile plaintiff's request for leave to amend to include new assertions where she may be able to allege that she was unaware of her injuries until sometime after she stopped participating in the therapy sessions, and she may have reasonably viewed the embarrassment and humiliation she felt as the ordinary, and hence not harmful, response to therapy. View "Gregg v. Hawaii DPS" on Justia Law

An educational agency does not commit a per se violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1414, by not specifying the anticipated school where special education services will be delivered within a child's individualized education program. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Department in an action brought on behalf of a student under the IDEA. The panel held that the IDEA did not require identification of the anticipated school where special education services would be delivered in light of the student's planned move to a new school district. Therefore, the student was not denied a free appropriate public education because of a purported procedural error. View "Rachel H. v. Department of Education, State of Hawaii" on Justia Law