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

Petitioner claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea-bargaining process. Plaintiff alleged that counsel advised him to reject a plea offer of six years' imprisonment without alerting him that he was being charged with a crime that would qualify as a "third strike" under California law. He later entered an open plea and was sentenced to a three strikes sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison. Without granting an evidentiary hearing, the California Supreme Court summarily denied his state petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Following the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the court reversed the district court's denial of the petition for habeas corpus and remanded to the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's claims. View "Miles v. Martel" on Justia Law

In Chambers v. Mississippi, the United States Supreme Court clearly established that the exclusion of trustworthy and necessary exculpatory testimony at trial violated a defendant's due process right to present a defense. This clearly established federal law applied at the time the California Supreme Court decided People v. Cudjo, the subject of this habeas appeal. The facts in Chambers were materially indistinguishable from the facts in this appeal. Therefore, the California Supreme Court's decision was contrary to clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and the error was not harmless. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's habeas petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cudjo, Jr. v. Ayers, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Austrian-owned OBB after sustaining personal injuries as a result of her attempt to board a moving train in Innsbruck. In this case, the court considered what acts could be attributed to a foreign state in applying the commercial activity exception to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602 et seq. The court concluded that Rail Pass Experts' sale of the Eurorail pass could not, under Doe v. Holy See, be imputed to OBB. Plaintiff did not allege a day-to-day, routine involvement of OBB in Eurorail, much less Rail Pass Experts. Therefore, the court held that OBB engaged in no commercial activity within the United States that would strip it of its immunity. View "Sachs v. Republic of Austria, et al" on Justia Law

The Forest Service limited the use of motor vehicles to certain roads in the century-old Eldorado National Forest (ENF). Concerned about the impact of the limitation on their activities, a group of miners and prospectors challenged the Forest Service's decision. The court held that the miners had standing to bring this suit. Still, the Forest Service acted within its authority when it prohibited cross country vehicle traffic and limited motor vehicle use to certain designated roads in the ENF. The "public roads" provision in 36 C.F.R. 228.4(a)(1) did not create an exception to the 2008 Decision because the roads on which motor vehicles were prohibited ceased to be "public roads," as reasonably defined by the Forest Service. View "Public Lands For The People, Inc., et al v. AGRI, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs became permanent residents and immigrated to the United States. However, due to visa quotas and a serious backlog, by the time plaintiffs received their family-sponsored visas, their children were no longer eligible to accompany them as recipients of derivative visas. At issue was whether these children were entitled to relief under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), 8 U.S.C. 1153(h). The court concluded that the plain language of the CSPA unambiguously granted automatic conversion and priority date retention to aged-out derivative beneficiaries. Accordingly, the BIA's interpretation of the statute conflicted with the plain language of the CSPA and was not entitled to deference. View "De Osorio, et al v. Scharfen, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Merck in their diversity action alleging wrongful death. Plaintiffs' son died after being administered a Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine manufactured by Merck. On appeal, plaintiffs contended that the district court erred in applying the standards of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-22, to their individual claims for damages. Having concluded that Section 22 of the Act generally applied to limit tort liability in a parent's claim for individual injuries, the court determined that plaintiffs' suit was a "civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine" and thus limited by the Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Holmes, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from the district court's order granting plaintiffs partial injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from detaining any individual "based on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person was unlawfully present within the United States." Plaintiffs contended that defendants have a "custom, policy and practice of racial profiling and practice of stopping Latino drivers and passengers pretextually and without individualized suspicion or cause, and of subjecting them to different, burdensome, stigmatizing and injurious treatment once stopped," under the auspices of enforcing immigration laws. While defendants raised a number of issues on appeal, the court only addressed the order granting "partial injunctive relief." Consequently, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief. View "De Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al v. Arpaio, et al" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the district court's order granting summary judgment to appellees in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 after appellant spent nineteen years in prison convicted of murders that he did not commit. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment to appellees on appellant's fabrication-of-evidence claim, and affirmed on that basis. The court reversed, however, the district court's denial of appellant's motion to amend his complaint and remand to the district court with instructions to allow appellant to plead an explicit Fifth Amendment violation. The exceptional circumstances in this case persuaded the court that a remand was necessary to avoid manifest injustice. View "Hall v. City of Los Angeles, et al" on Justia Law

Kivalina appealed the district court's dismissal of their action for damages against Energy Producers. Kivalina alleged that massive greenhouse gas emissions emitted by the Energy Producers have resulted in global warming, which, in turn, has severely eroded the land where the City of Kivalina sits and threatens it with imminent destruction. Kivalina sought damages under a federal common law claim of public nuisance. At issue was whether the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., and the EPA action that the Act authorized, displaced Kivalina's claims. The court concluded that the Supreme Court has held that federal common law addressing domestic greenhouse gas emissions has been displaced by Congressional action. That determination displaced federal common law public nuisance actions seeking damages, as well as those actions seeking injunctive relief. The civil conspiracy claim fell within the substantive claim. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Native Village of Kivalina, et al v. Exxonmobile Corp., et al" on Justia Law

This case arose out of Native Ecosystems Council's appeal of the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service in an action regarding the Ettien Ridge Fuels Reduction Project in the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Native Ecosystems Council alleged that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331, and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. 1600-14, when it issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Decision Notice approving the Project. The court held that the Forest Service took the requisite "hard look" at the environmental impact of the Project on the elk hiding cover, and goshawk populations, in the manner required by NEPA. The court further held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Forest Service on the NFMA claims because it reasonably considered the "relevant factors" that could have impacted the elk hiding cover and goshawk populations in its analysis of the Project. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Native Ecosystems Council, et al v. Weldon, et al" on Justia Law