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

Plaintiffs are two members of the School of the Americas Watch (SOAW), a human rights and advocacy group dedicated to monitoring the United States Army School of the Americas (SOA) graduates and lobbying for closure of the school. At issue in this appeal is whether the names of foreign students and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) are exempt from disclosure under Exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6). The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs, concluding that the disclosure of these names would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. View "Cameranesi v. U.S. Dep't of Defense" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, alleges that defendants wrongfully classified him as a gang member in retaliation for filing a section 1983 suit against defendants' colleagues. Plaintiff was denied habeas relief because California courts rejected his claims on the ground that there was sufficient evidence to support the gang validation. Plaintiff then filed the present action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, based on violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The district court dismissed his suit on claim preclusion grounds. The court concluded that California claim preclusion law governs whether, in light of his earlier state habeas petition, plaintiff's section 1983 claims may be brought in federal court. The court held that the same primary right—defendant's right to be free from unlawful gang validation and placement in the SHU—was at issue in both suits. Because plaintiff's suit involves the same cause of action between the same parties after a final judgment on the merits of the first suit, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. Finally, the court declined defendants' request to assess a strike against defendant under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). View "Furnace v. Giurbino" on Justia Law

This dispute stems from plaintiff's attempt to protect his copyright in photographs of Pablo Picasso's artworks after an American art editor (Wofsy) reproduced the photographic images. Plaintiff received a judgment in French court of two million euros in "astreinte" against Wofsy. Plaintiff then sought to enforce the judgment in federal court in California under the California Uniform Foreign-Court Monetary Judgment Recognition Act, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 1713 et seq. The court held that Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 authorizes district courts to consider foreign legal materials outside the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss because Rule 44.1 treats foreign law determinations as questions of law, not fact. In this case, the district court did not err in considering expert declarations on the content of French law in ruling on Wofsy’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The court concluded that the district court erred in concluding that “the award of an astreinte in this case constitutes a penalty for purposes of the [Uniform Recognition Act].” The court held that the astreinte awarded by the French courts to plaintiff falls within the Uniform Recognition Act as a judgment that “[g]rants . . . a sum of money.” In this case, the astreinte was not a “fine or other penalty” for purposes of the Act, and accordingly the district court erred in concluding otherwise. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded. View "De Fontbrune v. Wofsy" on Justia Law

After the Party failed to meet the deadline for recognition as an official political party on the 2014 Arizona ballot, it challenges the constitutionality of Arizona’s filing deadline for new party petitions, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Party claims that by requiring "new" parties to file recognition petitions 180 days before the primary, Arizona unconstitutionally burdens those parties’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court concluded that, without evidence of the specific obstacles to ballot access that the deadline imposes, the Party did not establish that its rights are severely burdened. Moreover, the court concluded that, at best, any burden is de minimus. Finally, after the court balanced the impact of the 180-day filing deadline on the Party's rights against Arizona's interests - administering orderly elections - in maintaining that deadline, the court concluded that the Party has not demonstrated an unconstitutional interference with ballot access. View "Arizona Green Party v. Reagan" on Justia Law

United Cook filed suit challenging Amendment 12, which removed three historic net fishing areas from the Salmon fishery management plan (FMP), and its implementing regulations as contrary to the Magnuson-Stevens Act's requirement that a Council prepare an FMP “for each fishery under its authority that requires conservation and management,” 16 U.S.C. 1852(h)(1). United Cook also alleged that Amendment 12 was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). At issue on appeal is whether NMFS can exempt a fishery under its authority that requires conservation and management from an FMP because the agency is content with State management. The court concluded that the Magnuson-Stevens Act unambiguously requires a Council to create an FMP for each fishery under its authority that requires conservation and management. The Act allows delegation to a state under an FMP, but does not excuse the obligation to adopt an FMP when a Council opts for state management. Therefore, the court concluded that Amendment 12 is contrary to law to the extent it removes Cook Inlet from the FMP. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions that judgment be entered in favor of United Cook. View "United Cook Inlet Drift Ass'n. V. NMFS" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Indonesia, seeks review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal based on its determination that although petitioner otherwise qualified for withholding of removal, he was barred from relief due to his material support of a terrorist organization. The court agreed with the BIA that petitioner's late asylum filing is not excused because new evidence confirming what petitioner already knew - that moderate Muslims may face violent repression in Indonesia - does not constitute changed circumstances. The court applied the same burden-of-proof framework that it applied in the context of the persecutor bar. The court required a threshold showing of particularized evidence of the bar’s applicability before placing on the applicant the burden to rebut it. The court concluded, here, that the BIA erred in concluding that petitioner was barred from withholding of removal due to his material support of a terrorist organization. In this case, the court determined that the IJ failed to make the requisite factual findings to support his conclusion that the Jemaah Muslim Attaqwa was a terrorist organization. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review, reversed the order of removal, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Budiono v. Lynch" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss evidence of the crack cocaine in his pockets and the firearm in his vehicle. The court concluded that, based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop, the officers had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain defendant and the district court erred in concluding otherwise; the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant and performed a valid search incident to arrest of defendant's person - which lawfully extended to the insides of defendant's pockets - after apprehending defendant for obstruction under Nevada Revised Statute 171.123; the court rejected defendant's contention that the government waived its argument that the officers had probable cause to arrest him for violating the Nevada statute; the government, having advanced its probable cause theory before the district court, is able to make a more precise argument on appeal as to why the officers had probable cause; and, in this case, the officers had probable cause to believe that evidence of contraband would be found in defendant's vehicle. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Appellees are immigrant minors, aged three to seventeen, who have been placed in administrative removal proceedings. The children, suing on behalf of themselves and a class, claim a due process and statutory right to appointed counsel at government expense in immigration proceedings. The government filed this interlocutory appeal, challenging the district court’s determination that it had jurisdiction over the constitutional claims. The minors cross-appealed, disputing, among other issues, the district court’s dismissal of the statutory claims. The court concluded that 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5) and 1252(b)(9) channel review of all claims, including policies-and-practices challenges, through the petition for review (PFR) process whenever they “arise from” removal proceedings. Because the children’s right-to-counsel claims arise from their removal proceedings, they can only raise those claims through the PFR process. The court also concluded that the minors have not been denied all forms of meaningful judicial review. Accordingly, the district court lacks jurisdiction over the minors' claims. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the statutory claims and reversed the district court's determination that it has jurisdiction over the constitutional claims. View "J.E. F.M. V. Lynch" on Justia Law

After Osvaldo Villarreal, a police officer in Tustin, California, fatally shot Benny Herrera during an attempted investigatory stop, relatives of Herrera filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Officer Villarreal and the City of Tustin, alleging that the officer used excessive force against Herrera. The district court denied Officer Villareal's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the government's interests were insufficient to justify the use of deadly force where the crime at issue was a domestic dispute that had ended before the police became involved, Herrera did not pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and Officer Villarreal escalated to deadly force very quickly. Based on the totality of circumstances, and balancing the interests of the two sides, the court concluded that the intrusion on Herrera’s interests substantially outweighed any interest in using deadly force. Therefore, Officer Villarreal’s fatal shooting of Herrera violated the Fourth Amendment. The court further concluded that the officer violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law when he shot and killed Herrera. Accordingly, the court affirmed and remanded for further proceedings. View "A. K. H. V. City of Tustin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). At both his first trial and his subsequent re-trial, defendant testified that before being stopped at a checkpoint, he had given a ride to three teenagers he did not know as a favor to his cousin’s husband, Christian Rios Campos. Rios was a known drug smuggler who recruited juveniles, and defendant's primary defense was that the teenagers had planted the drugs in the car without his knowledge. On appeal, defendant argued, inter alia, that the district court abused its discretion by denying his pretrial motion for discovery relating to the constitutionality of the San Clemente checkpoint, and the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for discovery on Rios’s drug smuggling operation. The court agreed with defendant that the district court abused its discretion in denying discovery that could have revealed an unconstitutional seizure and led to the suppression of the evidence that illicit drugs were found in defendant's car. In this case, whether the primary purpose of the checkpoint has evolved from controlling immigration to detecting“ordinary criminal wrongdoing,” is a question that is subject to discovery under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E). Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on this issue. The court also reversed the district court’s denial of discovery of the government’s investigation into Rios’s drug smuggling operation. After reviewing documents submitted by the government, the court disagreed both with the district court’s characterization of the documents and with its application of the law. Therefore, the court reversed the denial of defendant's discovery motion, vacated the conviction, and remanded with instructions to grant the motion. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress; rejected defendant's challenge to a jury instruction; and concluded that defendant's knowledge of the type and quantity of the drugs found in his car is not an element under 21 U.S.C. 841. View "United States v. Soto-Zuniga" on Justia Law