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

Petitioner Frank O. Loher, convicted of sexual assault and given an extended-term sentence, filed a petition for habeas relief. The district court in Loher VI granted the writ on all three of Loher’s claims: (1) that the trial court violated Loher’s constitutional rights by forcing him to testify; (2) that Loher’s appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to raise the forced testimony issue; and (3) that the enhancement of his sentence based on judge-found facts violated Apprendi v. New Jersey. The district court ordered Hawaii to release or retry Loher and then the district court stayed that order pending this appeal. The court concluded that the Hawaii ICA’s rejection of Loher’s Brooks v. Tennessee claim was not objectively unreasonable; the court rejected Loher’s challenges to the creation of the post-conviction record and to the Hawaii ICA’s reliance on the facts found on remand; because Hawaii has failed to argue this independent ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel (IAAC) issue specifically and distinctly, it has waived its challenge to the district court’s grant of relief; and the State’s failure to object and its affirmative invitation to adopt the magistrate’s recommendation constitute waiver of its challenge to Loher’s Apprendi claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. View "Loher v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Wiccan, petitioned on behalf of himself and some thirty fellow Wiccan inmates that the prison recognize Wicca as a bona fide religion and afford its followers the same rights accorded to inmates of other faiths. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement (the 1997 Agreement). The parties subsequently entered into another settlement agreement, which the district court adopted as a consent decree (2011 Decree). The decree reaffirmed the promises the CDC made in the 1997 Agreement and provided plaintiff with additional privileges. At issue on appeal is the district court's decision to terminate the consent decree based on defendants' substantial compliance. The court accorded no special deference in reviewing the district court's exercise of discretion when the district court had supervised the consent decree only two years of the twenty-year history of the case. The court concluded that the district court committed numerous errors in terminating a consent decree that had been carefully crafted over the course of two decades; the district court applied the wrong legal standard and found substantial compliance without giving due attention to the various exacting obligations embodied in the decree, and without considering whether the purpose of the decree had been served; the district court improvidently refused to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve material factual disputes about whether defendants had complied with the decree; and the district court also encouraged noncompliance by finding that defendants had violated the consent decree, yet refusing to grant any meaningful relief. The court held that under no circumstances should the district court consider terminating a decree unless and until there has been a substantial period of substantial compliance - in this case no less than a year - with every one of its terms. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order and reinstated the 2011 consent decree, remanding for further proceedings. View "Rouser v. White" on Justia Law

After Renee Tillman filed suit against her law firm, arbitration proceeded for a time until Tillman ran out of funds. The arbitration was then terminated and now the parties disagree about what should now happen to Tillman’s federal court case against the firm. The court concluded that Tillman's case “has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement,” so it is no longer appropriate to stay the proceedings below; the district court appropriately excused Tillman’s failure to pay for arbitration on the grounds of financial incapacity; and, under these circumstances, the court held that the FAA does not require dismissal of Tillman’s case. Rather, Tillman's case should go forward in federal court and thus the court remanded with instructions on how to proceed. View "Tillman v. Rheingold firm" on Justia Law

Defendants, husband and wife, were convicted of charges related to their role as ordained ministers in the Hawaii Cannabis Ministry. Defendants admit to using and distributing large quantities of cannabis, but claim that in doing so they were merely exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs. The court agreed that the government has a compelling interest in mitigating the risk that cannabis from the Ministry will be diverted to recreational users, and that the facts of this case demonstrate that mandating defendants' full compliance with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., would help to advance this compelling interest to a meaningful degree. Furthermore, the government could not achieve its compelling interest in mitigating diversion through anything less than mandating defendants' full compliance with the CSA. Therefore, defendant's statutory free exercise rights have not been violated and the court rejected their defense under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq. The court rejected the wife's claim that she should be exempted from prosecution, even if her husband is not, because he was the founder and leader of the Ministry. The court also rejected defendants' claim that RFRA’s intersection with the CSA violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on vague criminal laws. RFRA cannot be unconstitutionally vague because it is not a penal statute or anything like one. Likewise, the rule of lenity is equally untenable. The court further concluded that defendants' contention that their indictments should be dismissed on the theory that the CSA’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is foreclosed by the court's precedent. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing wiretaps obtained in the course of investigating defendants and the Ministry, and the district court did not clearly err in denying defendants a Franks hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Christie" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that they prevented him from collecting on a California state court legal malpractice judgment. The district court granted Defendant Hummer's motion to strike plaintiff's claims under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order is not a "final decision" over which the court may exercise appellate jurisdiction. Under the Erie doctrine, it is long since settled that federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. Rule 54(b), which the court must apply, clearly states that the order on appeal here is not final. The court also concluded that the grant of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. View "Hyan v. Hummer" on Justia Law

After Whittaker was found liable for injuries caused by its pollution and paid to clean up the pollution, Whittaker filed suit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., against the United States to recover expenses that it had incurred. The district court concluded that the Castaic Lake lawsuit triggered Whittaker’s right to bring an action for contribution, and that the instant lawsuit sought expenses that could have been reimbursed through such a contribution action. The court held, however, that Whittaker was not required to bring its claims in this case in a section 113(f) contribution action after its liability was resolved in Castaic Lake. In this case, Whittaker was found liable to the Castaic Lake plaintiffs for the expenses specifically related to removing perchlorate from the plaintiffs’ wells and replacing their water. Whittaker now seeks reimbursement from the government for a different set of expenses, for which Whittaker was not found liable in Castaic Lake. The court did not believe that Congress mandated parties who have been sued in section 107 cost recovery actions to bring all of their own CERCLA claims in the form of a contribution action, on an accelerated timeframe, regardless of the merit or the result of the section 107 cost recovery suit. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Whittaker Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges related to her participation in an extensive mortgage-fraud conspiracy and was ordered to pay more than $2 million in restitution and to forfeit more than $100 million. The court rejected defendant's contention that the restitution amount was not supported by adequate evidence and that it violated the Eighth Amendment where the district court explicitly stated that it would calculate loss through the method defendant advocates. Defendant's bare speculation on appeal that this process was somehow deficient does not approach her burden of demonstrating clear or obvious error in the court’s restitution calculations. Without error in the loss calculation, defendant's Eighth Amendment claim fails. The court rejected defendant's challenges to the order of monetary forfeiture imposed at sentencing, concluding that defendant's bare assertion that the district court needed more evidence to make an accurate accounting of the loan proceeds falls far short of her burden of demonstrating clear or obvious error in the district court’s calculation.Furthermore, it is not anomalous to order her jointly and severally liable, along with the other participants in that conspiracy, for the total amount of money that was illegally gained by the conspiratorial enterprise. Finally, the court concluded that the order of forfeiture is punitive and therefore subject to Eighth Amendment excessiveness review. The court vacated the order with respect to Count 1 and remanded for reconsideration of that amount in light of the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The court affirmed the order of restitution and the amounts of forfeiture ordered on defendant's convictions for Counts 10, 11, 13, and 14. View "United States v. Beecroft" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for interfering with the administration of the tax laws in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7212, presenting fictitious financial instruments in violation of 18 U.S.C. 514, and presenting false claims to the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 287. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to preclude a judgment of acquittal on the section 514 counts. Because, however, it was not so overwhelming that it negated the prejudice flowing from the lack of any instruction that the financial instruments in question had to be issued “under the authority of the United States,” the court remanded for a new trial. The court also concluded that it was not error for the district court not to instruct the jury that an attempt to reduce tax liability is not a “claim” within the meaning of section 287; the section 7212 charge was timely; the court agreed with the Fourth Circuit that a charge under section 7212 is timely so long as it is returned within six years of an affirmative act of evasion, even if the evasion first began outside the period; the section 7212(a) charge was not duplicitous; and, even if the government’s rebuttal summation had been improper, it was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Murphy" on Justia Law

JAC filed suit contending that the NIGC violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, when it approved the Tribe's gaming ordinance without first conducting a NEPA environmental review. The district court denied JAC's petition for a writ of mandamus under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706, holding that NIGC’s approval of the 2013 gaming ordinance was not “major federal action” within the meaning of NEPA. Even if NIGC's approval of the ordinance was a major Federal action, the court held that an agency need not adhere to NEPA where doing so would create an irreconcilable and fundamental conflict with the substantive statute at issue. In this case, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 2701–2721, requires NIGC to approve a gaming ordinance or resolution pursuant to a mandatory deadline. There is no question that it would be impossible for NIGC to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in the ninety days it has to approve a gaming ordinance. Contrary to JAC’s arguments, NIGC’s approval of the Tribe’s gaming ordinance without conducting a NEPA environmental review did not violate NIGC’s obligations under NEPA because "where a clear and unavoidable conflict in statutory authority exists, NEPA must give way.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's requested writ of mandamus. View "Jamul Action Comm. v. Chaudhuri" on Justia Law

Creditor appealed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) decision determining that the exception to discharge found in 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(2) did not apply to debtor. The court held that section 727(a)(2), which prevents the bankruptcy court from granting a debtor a discharge if the debtor improperly transferred property “within one year before the date of the filing of the petition” in bankruptcy, is not subject to equitable tolling. In this case, because the transfer of the Lake Harbor property took place more than one year before debtor filed his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and section 727(a)(2) is not subject to equitable tolling, debtor was not precluded from discharge of his debts under section 727(a)(2). Accordingly, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment to debtor on this issue. View "DeNoce v. Neff" on Justia Law