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

In this case, the plaintiff, Desiree Martinez, sued Channon High, a City of Clovis police officer, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Officer High violated her due process rights by disclosing her confidential domestic violence report to her abuser, Kyle Pennington, who was also a Clovis police officer. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Officer High.The appellate court held that while Officer High did violate Ms. Martinez's due process rights under the state-created danger doctrine by disclosing her confidential domestic violence report to Mr. Pennington, the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. The court explained that state actors are generally not liable for failing to prevent the acts of private parties, but an exception applies where the state affirmatively places the plaintiff in danger by acting with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger. In this case, Officer High's disclosure of Ms. Martinez's confidential report to Pennington, whom she knew was an alleged abuser, placed Ms. Martinez in actual, foreseeable danger. However, it was not clearly established in 2013 that Officer High’s actions violated Ms. Martinez’s substantive due process rights. The court clarified that going forward, an officer would be liable under the state-created danger doctrine when the officer discloses a victim’s confidential report to a violent perpetrator in a manner that increases the risk of retaliation against the victim. View "MARTINEZ V. HIGH" on Justia Law

In this case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court considered whether the claims filed by Adriana Holt, her children, and her mother Beatriz Lukens against Orange County and several deputy sheriffs were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The plaintiffs alleged unlawful search and arrest and brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California state law. The case involved multiple filings and dismissals in different courts, raising the question of whether the tolling provision of the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, applied to their claims.The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were not tolled and were therefore properly dismissed as untimely. The court reasoned that § 1367 tolls the applicable statute of limitations for a federal-law claim that is contained in the same federal court complaint as a supplemental state-law claim and that is “voluntarily dismissed at the same time as or after the dismissal of the [supplemental] claim.” However, this tolling provision does not apply when the supplemental claim is voluntarily dismissed, as occurred in Holt's first suit, or when a supplemental claim is dismissed for improper joinder, as occurred in the separate class action.Finally, the court also held that the plaintiffs' state-law claims were not tolled by a Covid-19 pandemic emergency tolling order and rule because the limitations periods for those claims had already lapsed before either the order or rule went into effect. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims as time-barred. View "HOLT V. COUNTY OF ORANGE" on Justia Law

In a criminal case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the defendant, Conrado Virgen-Mendoza, was convicted for conspiracy to aid and abet his brother, Paulo Virgen-Mendoza, in his flight to Mexico to avoid prosecution for the murder of a police officer. This was in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1073. Conrado appealed his conviction, arguing that the district court had made a reversible error by allowing the government to argue during closing statements that each co-conspirator did not need to have knowledge about Paulo’s intention to travel to Mexico.Conrado also argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had knowledge of and specifically intended to further Paulo's escape to Mexico. Furthermore, he contested that the district court had abused its discretion by allowing the government to read transcripts of his interviews with law enforcement to the jury without also admitting into evidence the Spanish-language interview recordings.The appellate court held that, since the substantive offense of flight to avoid prosecution under § 1073 never occurred, the government was required to prove that the conspirators knew of the fact giving rise to federal jurisdiction, i.e., that they were aiding Paulo’s flight into Mexico to avoid prosecution. The court concluded that any misstatement of the law by the government did not materially affect the verdict, as the brief misstatement was neutralized by the district court’s instructions to the jury.The court further held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Conrado knew about and specifically intended to help Paulo cross the border to Mexico to avoid prosecution. Lastly, the court ruled that even if the district court had erred by not admitting the Spanish-language interview recordings into evidence, the exclusion did not materially affect the verdict. Thus, the court affirmed Conrado's conviction. View "USA V. VIRGEN-MENDOZA" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the defendant, José Gambino-Ruiz, was convicted and sentenced for illegal re-entry into the U.S. under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gambino-Ruiz appealed his conviction, arguing that the removal order, which was the basis for his charge, was improper under the Immigration and Nationality Act. He also contested his sentence, claiming that the district judge considered impermissible factors in denying a downward sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.The Court ruled that Gambino-Ruiz was properly subject to expedited removal under § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) and therefore did not violate his due process rights when he was removed via expedited proceedings in 2013. He was properly convicted of illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Furthermore, the Court affirmed his sentence, ruling that Gambino-Ruiz did not demonstrate that his was a rare circumstance where the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is due after the defendant has proceeded to trial.The facts of the case are as follows: Gambino-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. illegally several times. Each time, he was apprehended by border patrol agents and subsequently deported through expedited removal proceedings. In 2020, he was again found in the U.S. illegally and was charged with illegal re-entry of a removed alien. His motions to dismiss the charges and to suppress his admissions to the border patrol agents were denied, leading to a trial where he was found guilty. At sentencing, Gambino-Ruiz's request for a downward sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility was denied, leading to his appeal. View "USA V. GAMBINO-RUIZ" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a judgment from the United States District Court for the Central District of California regarding the FBI's "inventory" of 700 safe deposit boxes at US Private Vaults (USPV). The USPV was under investigation for various criminal activities. The FBI seized the boxes and their contents under a warrant that expressly did not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the box contents. After a trial based on written submissions, the district court ruled in favor of the government, holding that the government's "inventory" of the safe deposit boxes was a constitutionally valid inventory search. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, stating that the inventory search doctrine did not apply because one of the key features of the doctrine is the existence of standardized instructions which limit the discretion of officers and apply consistently across cases. The court found that the FBI had supplemented its standardized instructions with additional instructions specifically designed for the USPV raid, which took the case out of the realm of a standardized "inventory" procedure. The Ninth Circuit also held that the government exceeded the scope of the warrant, which did not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safe deposit boxes. The case was remanded for the FBI to sequester or destroy the records of its inventory search pertaining to the class members. View "Snitko v. United States" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed two defendants’ convictions for violating the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), which prohibits the possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute while on board a covered vessel. The defendants were arrested after their speedboat, which was carrying at least 1,000 kilograms of cocaine, was intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard off the coast of Ecuador. The vessel carried no nationality flag, but both defendants verbally claimed Ecuadorian nationality for the vessel. The Ecuadorian government neither confirmed nor denied the nationality. The United States treated the vessel as stateless and exercised jurisdiction. The defendants challenged the government’s jurisdiction, arguing that the relevant provision of the MDLEA under which jurisdiction was exercised is unconstitutional because it conflicts with international law regarding when a vessel may be treated as stateless. The court held that the definition of “vessel without nationality” under the MDLEA does not conflict with international law, and thus affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment. View "USA V. MARIN" on Justia Law

The case in review involves Michele McKee, who claimed a homestead exemption for a property in Palm Springs where she formerly lived with her partner, Laura O’Kane. McKee argued that she should qualify for California’s homestead exemption, which partially protects the debtor’s home from creditors. However, she didn't physically reside in the property when she filed her bankruptcy petition and the court determined she didn't have the intent to return.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which affirmed the bankruptcy court's order denying McKee the homestead exemption. The court held that McKee did not meet her burden of proving that she either physically occupied the property or intended to return to it. The court did not accept McKee's argument that because her partner's abuse made it impossible for her to return to the property, her testimony that she wished to do so should be enough to establish a homestead. The court noted that McKee had demonstrated no signs of intent to return, such as leaving her personal belongings at the property or retaining its address on her driver's license, therefore she did not show entitlement to a homestead exemption. View "MCKEE V. ANDERSON" on Justia Law

In the case involving Williams Sports Rentals Inc. (WSR) and Marian Latasha Willis, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on the scope of an injunction under the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act. The case stemmed from a fatal accident involving a jet ski owned by WSR. Anticipating a lawsuit, WSR filed a complaint under the Limitation Act, which allows a vessel owner to limit its liability for accidents. The district court granted an injunction against all other lawsuits related to the accident, and the case reached the Ninth Circuit after the district court reinstated the injunction when new claims arose. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court had the authority to grant an injunction since the limitation fund was insufficient to cover all pending claims, but found the injunction to be overly broad. The court ruled that under the Anti-Injunction Act, the district court could only bar claims against the owner (WSR), not claims against other parties. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded the case with instructions to narrow the injunction so that it only barred claims against WSR. View "Williams Sports Rentals Inc. v. Willis" on Justia Law

In a trademark dispute between two companies that used the word "Punchbowl" in their marks, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgement in favor of AJ Press, LLC. The court held that AJ Press, LLC's use of the Punchbowl mark was not outside the scope of the Lanham Act under the "Rogers test". The Rogers test, which governs disputes over trademarks that are used in expressive works protected by the First Amendment, does not apply when the accused infringer uses a trademark to designate the source of its own goods. The court found that AJ Press, LLC was using the Punchbowl mark to identify and distinguish its news products. The court reversed the district court's judgement and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to proceed to a likelihood-of-confusion analysis under the Lanham Act. View "Punchbowl, Inc. v. AJ Press, LLC" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, a coalition on homelessness and seven current or formerly homeless residents of San Francisco, who sought to prevent the City and County of San Francisco from enforcing any ordinance that punishes sleeping, lodging, or camping on public property. The plaintiffs argued that such enforcement violated the Eighth Amendment. On appeal, the defendants argued, for the first time, that the enforcement actions did not leave unhoused individuals with nowhere else to go, but instead required them to relocate from specific encampment sites and only at certain times. The Ninth Circuit deemed this argument waived as it was not brought up in the lower court and even if it was considered, the argument would not change the outcome as the defendants' enforcement of the laws were no narrower in scope than the laws at issue in prior cases, Martin v. City of Boise and Johnson v. City of Grants Pass. The court held that the defendants have yet to show that the preliminary injunction was improper based on the arguments and evidentiary record before the district court. View "Coalition on Homelessness v. City of San Francisco" on Justia Law