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

Plaintiffs Gantt and Smith were tried and convicted of murder. After the key witness recanted his testimony, all charges were dismissed. The instant appeal concerned the unsuccessful lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. 1983 filed by plaintiffs following their release. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in a verdict for defendants on all claims. Plaintiffs subsequently challenged certain jury instructions and evidentiary rulings. The court concluded that the district court erred in instructing the jury about the level of culpability required for a deliberate fabrication of evidence claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The error was not harmless and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the fabrication of evidence. At any retrial on this matter, the district court should consider whether a Brady instruction was warranted and explain its ruling. Further, the correct conspiracy instruction must be given under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiffs' remaining assignments of error either lacked merit or the claims were not supported by sufficient evidence in the record. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to the specific claims outlined. View "Gantt v. City of Los Angeles, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the Secretary's denial of their claims for Medicare coverage for dental services. Plaintiffs contended that this denial was premised on the Secretary's unreasonable interpretation of the Medicare Act, Pub. L. No. 89-97, 79 Stat. 286, which contravened the intent of Congress and violated plaintiffs' right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The court concluded that, although the statutory provision for exclusion of dental services was ambiguous in the sense that plausible divergent constructions could be urged, the Secretary's interpretation of the statute was reasonable. The court also concluded that the Secretary's statutory interpretation warranted Chevron deference and the Secretary's statutory interpretation was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fournier v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, the warden of the prison where defendant had served his sentence and the director of the Montana Department of Corrections, seeking damages related to his sentence and probation. The court concluded that prison officials who simply enforced facially valid court orders were performing functions necessary to the judicial process. Accordingly, the court held that prison officials, like defendants in this case, who were charged with executing facially valid court orders enjoyed absolute immunity from section 1983 liability for conduct prescribed by those orders. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. View "Engebretson v. Mahoney" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed complaints against defendants alleging that defendants infringed its "diamond kilim" design by selling rugs and other home goods bearing the design. The district court subsequently entered judgment awarding damages against defendants, and sub silentio denying injunctive relief. Defendants timely filed a renewal motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Civil Rule 50(b), as well as a timely motion for a new trial under Rule 59. The district court denied both motions and plaintiff then filed, without support in the Federal Civil Rules, a "Motion for a Permanent Injunction." The district court construed the motion as one for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), and denied that motion. Construing the motion for permanent injunction as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), as the district court did, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to file the motion within ten days after entry of judgment. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal. View "Classic Concepts, Inc. v. Linen Source, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision finding that his conviction for possession of marijuana for sale in violation of California Health & Safety Code 11359 was categorically a crime relating to a controlled substance. The court concluded that petitioner failed to met his burden of proving a "realistic probability" that Cailfornia would apply section 11359 to conduct not related to a controlled substance. Just as section 11359 was categorically a controlled substance offense for sentencing purposes, it was categorically a crime relating to a controlled substance for immigration purposes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Macias-Carreon v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to two counts of possession of contraband and one count of providing contraband to an inmate, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1791. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court plainly erred in interpreting section 1791(c). Because the court held that section 1791(c) only required consecutive sentences where there was more than one conviction resulting from a single item of a controlled substance, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Joseph" on Justia Law

After petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to twenty-five years to life in prison with the possibility of parole, California amended its constitution to give the Governor authority to review parole-board decisions for prisoners convicted of murder. The parole board subsequently found petitioner suitable for parole but the then-Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, reversed the decision. Petitioner claimed that retroactive application of the interim change to the California Constitution violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. The court concluded that the California Supreme Court's decision in In re Rosenkrantz was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law, and neither was the Superior Court's decision in petitioner's case that relied on it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Biggs v. Sec'y of Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b) for being an alien found in the United States after removal. The court held that the district court correctly rejected defendant's collateral challenge to the validity of the removal order underlying his section 1326(b) sentencing enhancement; rejected defendant's arguments that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by admitting documents from his immigration file; and rejected defendant's claims that the district court erred procedurally and substantively in imposing a sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rojas-Pedroza" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, seeking to represent approximately 538 employees of Medline, appealed the district court's denial of class certification. The complaint asserted claims against Medline for violating California labor laws. The court concluded that the district court applied the wrong legal standard and abused its discretion when it denied class certification on the grounds that damages calculations would be individual. The district court also abused its discretion by finding that the class would be unmanageable despite the record's demonstration to the contrary. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded with directions to enter an order granting plaintiff's motion for class certification. View "Leyva v. Medline Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a United States citizen, filed a visa petition on behalf of her husband, a citizen of Afghanistan, but the visa was denied under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B). Section 1182(a)(3)(B) is a broad provision that excludes aliens on a variety of terrorism-related grounds. The court concluded that the Government's citation to section 1182(a)(3)(B), in the absence of any allegations of proscribed conduct, was not a facially legitimate reason to deny the visa. Because the Government had not offered a facially legitimate reason, plaintiff's claims for a writ of mandamus directing the Government to adjudicate the visa application and for a declaratory judgment survived dismissal. Accordingly, the court also concluded that plaintiff had standing to challenge 8 U.S.C. 1182(b)(3) as it had been applied to her. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Din v. Kerry" on Justia Law