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

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, seeking records identifying CIA personnel or affiliates that have engaged in torture. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that, although the FOIA request failed to reasonably describe the records sought, this failure bears on the merits of plaintiff's claim rather than the district court's subject matter jurisdiction. In this case, the district court erred by concluding that plaintiff's request constituted a question rather than a request for records; plaintiff cannot compel defendants to disclose documents on the basis of his vague request; but, ultimately, any failure to exhaust did not bear on the district court's subject matter jurisdiction. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Yagman v. Pompeo" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's approval of a consent decree between the EPA and the Sierra Club that set a schedule for the EPA to promulgate designations whether geographic areas met national ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401. The panel rejected the States' objections to the consent decree, holding that as long as the EPA sticks to the schedule in the consent decree, the Sierra Club will not advance its lawsuit against the EPA. Therefore, the consent decree did not prohibit the EPA from promulgating designations prior to those deadlines, nor did it otherwise constrain the agency's discretion. The panel explained that, because the consent decree did not bind the States to do nor not to do anything, imposed no legal duties or obligations on them at all, and did not purport to resolve any claims they might have, the States could not block the consent decree by merely withholding their consent. View "North Dakota v. Pruitt" on Justia Law

When deciding an 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion, a district court may supplement the original sentencing court's quantity findings only when supplemental findings are necessary to determine the defendant's eligibility for a sentence reduction in light of a retroactive Guidelines amendment. However, the district court may not make supplemental findings that are inconsistent with the findings made by the original sentencing court. A district court has broad discretion in how to adjudicate section 3582(c)(2) proceedings, including whether to hold a hearing when making supplemental findings of drug quantity. In this case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2), based on Guidelines Amendment 782, which raised the threshold amount of methamphetamine to trigger the maximum base offense level from 1.5 kilograms to 4.5 kilograms. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding, without a hearing, that defendant was ineligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2) because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable guideline range. View "United States v. Mercado-Moreno" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the FWS in an action challenging the FWS's determination that the Sonoran Desert Area bald eagle was not a distinct population segment eligible for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1533. The panel held that FWS reasonably concluded that, while the combination of unusual characteristics in a discrete population was sufficient to satisfy the persistence factor, those characteristics did not by themselves necessarily require a conclusion that the desert eagle population segment was ecologically or biologically significant for the bald eagle taxon as a whole; FWS reasonably concluded that if the desert eagle population segment were "extirpated," this would not create a significant gap in the range of the taxon; and FWS directly addressed climate change in its 2012 decision. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Zinke" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's 90 month sentence after he was convicted of two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms. The panel held that defendant's prior Washington crime of second-degree assault was not categorically a crime of violence where it criminalized more conduct than the generic federal definition of a crime of violence under USSG 2K2.1. The panel also held that the Washington statute was indivisible, because the statute defined a single crime—second-degree assault—and provided seven different "means" by which a person could commit that crime. Accordingly, the panel remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Freddie Mac in a quiet title action brought by a plaintiff who purchased real property in a homeowners association foreclosure sale. Plaintiff argued that the Nevada superpriority lien provision empowered the association to sell the home to him free of any other liens or interests, priority status aside. The panel held that the district court did not err in concluding that the Federal Foreclosure Bar superseded the Nevada superpriority lien provision. Although the recorded deed of trust here omitted Freddie Mac's name, Freddie Mac's property interest was valid and enforceable under Nevada law. The panel explained that, because Freddie Mac possessed an enforceable property interest and was under the agency's conservatorship at the time of the homeowners association foreclosure sale, the Federal Foreclosure Bar served to protect the deed of trust from extinguishment. Freddie Mac continued to own the deed of trust and the note after the sale to plaintiff. View "Berezovsky v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against BNSF, alleging that the company terminated him in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov. Code 12940 et seq. The Ninth Circuit applied the McDonnell Douglas test and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to BNSF, holding that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on his obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) where no evidence established that plaintiff's OSA was a substantial motivating reason for BNSF's decision to terminate him. Even if plaintiff had made a prima facie case of discrimination, plaintiff failed to offer evidence that BNSF's stated reason -- recurrent absenteeism -- was either false or pretextual. Therefore, BNSF did not engage in unlawful discrimination by declining to alter plaintiff's disciplinary outcome based on his OSA diagnosis. Finally, the panel rejected plaintiff's claim that BNSF failed to provide a reasonable accommodation and interactive process claims. View "Alamillo v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for health care fraud and conspiracy. The panel held that defendant failed to establish that she was denied her Sixth Amendment right to counsel because, although she established a conflict of interest, she failed to meet the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington; the district court did not erroneously fail to grant a continuance; the jury instructions as a whole properly conveyed the government's burden of proof; it was not error to give a deliberate ignorance charge; the district court properly calculated loss under USSG 2B1.1(b)(1); the district court properly applied a leadership role enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(a); and the district court did not err in calculating restitution based upon the entire amount of reimbursements received by defendant from Medicare and Medi-Cal. View "United States v. Walter-Eze" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the Coalition's request for attorney's fees under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Coalition sought information regarding Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who had been targeted by the CIA as a terrorist and was killed in a drone attack. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to consider and apply the relevant factors that the panel articulated in Church of Scientology v. United States Postal Serv., 700 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1983), for determining whether the Coalition had substantially prevailed. The panel explained that the district court's view of causation was at odds with Church of Scientology's more enlightened view that, as here, multiple factors may be at play. Furthermore, the district court judgment was inconsistent with Congress' intent that the award of FOIA counsel fees has at its fundamental purpose the facilitation of citizen access to the courts, and should not be subject to a grudging application. The panel remanded for the district court to determine the fees to which the Coalition was entitled. View "First Amendment Coalition v. USDOJ" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that VidAngel had likely violated both the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Copyright Act, and order preliminarily enjoining VidAngel from circumventing the technological measures controlling access to copyrighted works on DVDs and Blu-ray discs owned by the plaintiff entertainment studios, copying those works, and streaming, transmitting, or otherwise publicly performing or displaying them electronically. The Ninth Circuit held that the Family Movie Act of 2005 did not exempt VidAngel from liability for copyright infringement; VidAngel's fair use defense failed; the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act covered plaintiffs' technological protection measures, which control both access to and use of copyrighted works; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding irreparable harm, by balancing the equities, and by considering the public interest. View "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc." on Justia Law