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

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging, among other things, that his constitutional rights were violated by defendants' failure to protect him from other inmates and by defendants' deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The court concluded that an inmate's lack of awareness of a correctional institution's grievance procedure did not make the administrative remedy "unavailable" for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), unless the inmate met his or her burden of proving the grievance procedure to be unknowable. Because plaintiff had not met his burden of proof, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Albino v. Baca, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for multiple counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, and telemarketing fraud against the elderly. The primary issue on appeal was whether the district court committed plain error by admitting certificates of authentication for foreign public and business records by means of affidavit in violation of the Confrontation Clause. Because there was no controlling authority on point, and because the court's cases indicated that the admission of the certificates of authentication did not violate the Confrontation Clause, the court could not conclude that the district court plainly erred. Additionally, the court could not conclude that the district court abused its discretion in conducting voir dire, admitting both a chart summarizing bank records and the underlying records into evidence, or refusing to give defendant's requested informant credibility instruction to the jury. The court also could not conclude that the district court plainly erred in admitting allegedly improper comments by the prosecutor in the closing argument, or re-reading the original jury instructions in response to a question posed by the jury. Because the court did not find any error, there could be no cumulative error. Finally, the district court did not plainly err in referencing defendant's inability to pay restitution to show that it had considered imposing a lesser sentence to facilitate the payment of restitution, or using two Guidelines ranges. View "United States v. Anekwu" on Justia Law

Joseph Tracy appealed the Benefits Review Board's determination that injuries he incurred in part during his employment by Global International Offshore Ltd. from 1998-2002 were not covered under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901-950. Because the court held that no portion of Tracy's employment during this period satisfied the Act's status and situs test, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Keller Foundation/Case FNDN, et al v. Tracy, et al; Tracy, Jr. v. Director, Workers' Compensation Programs" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Facebook and others complaining that Facebook's program, Beacon, was causing publication of otherwise private information about their outside web activities to their personal profiles without their knowledge or approval. Beacon operated by updating a member's personal profile to reflect certain actions the member had taken on websites belonging to companies that had contracted with Facebook to participate in the Beacon program. At issue on appeal was whether the district court abused its discretion in approving the parties' $9.5 million settlement agreement as "fair, reasonable, and adequate," either because a Facebook employee sat on the board of the organization distributing cy pres funds (DTF) or because the settlement amount was too low. The court concluded that objectors' contention that the settling parties were prohibited from creating DTF to disburse cy pres funds was without merit, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in so concluding. The court also concluded that the settlement was fundamentally fair; the notice in this case adequately apprised class members of all material elements of the settlement agreement and therefore complied with the requirements of Rule 23(e); and the district court properly limited its substantive review of the agreement as necessary to determine that it was "fair, adequate, and free from collusion." View "Lane, et al v. Facebook, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

This appeal related to the Forest Service's design of the Angora Project in response to damage caused by the Angora Fire. The court held that the Lake Tahoe Forest Plan did not require the Forest Service to demonstrate at the project level that the Angora Project would maintain viable population levels of management indicator species, including the black-backed woodpecker. Therefore, the Forest Service's analysis of the Angora Project's impact on the black-backed woodpecker's habitat was not arbitrary and capricious under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq. Here, because the Forest Service did not fail to (1) ensure the scientific integrity of the final environmental assessment (EA), (2) properly responded to dissenting scientific opinion, (3) properly considered proposed alternatives to the Angora Project EA, and (4) took the requisite "hard look" at the impacts of the Angora Project, the court also concluded that the Forest Service's analysis of the Angora Project's environmental effect was not arbitrary and capricious under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court. View "Earth Island Institute, et al v. USFS, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendant's failure to provide pain medication to him violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff subsequently appealed from the judgment in favor of defendant entered pursuant to the order granting defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court held that plaintiff was entitled to notice explaining the requirements for a response to defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the consequences if the district court granted the motion. The court further held that plaintiff had a substantial right to such notice and that the district court's failure to provide such notice was not harmless. View "Stratton v. Buck, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated sexual abuse. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a witness's interview under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4); in admitting an expert's testimony under Rule 702; in admitting testimony that the victim had a truthful character under Rule 608(a); in admitting evidence of certain alleged prior acts; in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; and in concluding that venue was proper under the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 3237(a) and the court need not address the district court's alternative holding based on the second paragraph of that section. View "United States v. Lukashov, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted by an Arizona jury and sentenced to death for a 1992 killing spree. Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of habeas relief on three principal claims. On his first claim, the court concluded that there was no clearly established federal law requiring him to consent on the record to an insanity defense. On his second claim, the state PCR court reasonably concluded that petitioner's appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the multiple-victim aggravating factor. On his third claim, the state PCR court reasonably concluded that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the prosecutor's closing statements. View "Rogovich v. Schriro" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of an order of removal. Petitioner's attorney failed to appear at a scheduled merits hearing before an IJ because his license to practice law had been temporarily suspended. The IJ found that petitioner could have learned of his attorney's suspension as much as eleven days before the hearing and concluded that petitioner was not diligent in bringing his attorney's suspension. The IJ denied petitioner's motion to continue, proceeded with the hearing with petitioner unrepresented by counsel, and denied petitioner's application for asylum. The court concluded that petitioner's right to be represented by retained counsel was violated and that a petitioner so denied his right to counsel in an immigration proceedings was not required to demonstrate actual prejudice in order to obtain relief. Therefore, the court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Montes-Lopez, et al v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. The court affirmed the conviction and clarified that the outcome of the case was controlled by United States v. Valverde. Therefore, defendant's appeal was controlled by Valverde and the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250, applied retroactively to defendant at the time he failed to register as a sex offender. View "United States v. Mattix" on Justia Law