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

Plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer, alleging causes of action for employment discrimination and wrongful discharge. The district court subsequently dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that she had failed to state a claim and therefore failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). The court concluded that plaintiff's amended complaint, while brief, nonetheless satisfied Rule 8(a)(2)'s pleading standard. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Sheppard v. David Evans and Assoc." on Justia Law

The City of Glendale and various other parties sought to set aside the Department of the Interior's decision to accept in trust, for the benefit of the Tohono O'odham Nation, a 54-acre parcel of land known as Parcel 2. The Nation hoped to build a destination resort and casino on Parcel 2, which was unincorporated county land, entirely surrounded by the city. This appeal related the the status of the land as trust. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the government after that court concluded that the Secretary of the Interior reasonably applied the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act, Pub. L. No. 99-503, 100 Stat. 1798, and that the Act did not violate the Indian Commerce Clause or the Tenth Amendment. View "City of Glendale, et al v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against defendant, a prosecuting attorney, charging, among other things, that Idaho Code 18-606 violated various provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The prosecuting attorney had previously filed a felony criminal complaint against plaintiff, charging her with "the public offense of Unlawful Abortion" pursuant to section 18-606. The Idaho state district court subsequently dismissed the criminal complaint without prejudice and the prosecuting attorney had not determined whether he would re-file the criminal complaint. In the class action suit, the district court issued a preliminary injunction, restraining the prosecuting attorney from enforcing section 18-606 and 18-608(1). Both parties appealed, raising several challenges. The court affirmed the district court's determination that plaintiff would likely succeed with her facial constitutional challenges to sections 18-606 and 18-609(1); affirmed the district court's conclusion that plaintiff lacked standing to seek pre-enforcement relief against the enforcement of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (PUCPA), Idaho Code 18-505; reversed the scope of the injunction to the extent that it granted relief beyond plaintiff; and reversed the district court's determination that plaintiff did not have standing to enjoin enforcement of section 18-608(2) in conjunction with section 18-606. View "McCormack v. Hiedeman" on Justia Law

Each of the two plaintiffs in this case had resided for several years in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a territory of the United States, when federal immigration law replaced CNMI immigration law there in 2009. At issue was whether the time plaintiffs resided in the CNMI before 2009 transition date counted toward the five-year residence requirement for naturalization. The court held that, under the clear language of the controlling statute, the district court correctly concluded that the time did not count. View "Eche, et al v. Holder, Jr., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought suit against the manufacturer of an electronic control device - commonly known as a "taser" - and sued police officers for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state-law wrongful death. At issue was whether a police officer had used constitutionally excessive force by repeatedly deploying a taser against a combative suspect and whether the manufacturer of that device had provided sufficient warning that its repeated use could lead to death. The deceased suspect had gouged out the eye of a family member, attempting to exorcize her demons, when police officers arrived at the scene. The court held that the taser provided sufficient warning as a matter of law. The court also held that, although the officers used significant force in this case, it was justified by the considerable government interests at stake. Because the court concluded that the officers acted reasonably in using force, plaintiffs' state law claims against the officers for wrongful death could not succeed unless the use of the taser constituted deadly force and the use of the deadly force was not justified. The court concluded that it was not convinced that the use of the taser involved deadly force, but even if the taser qualified as deadly force, no reasonable jury could find that the circumstances here failed to justify the use of deadly force. View "Marquez, et al v. City of Phoenix, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are a collection of primarily non-trawl fishermen's associations and groups whose longtime participation in the fishery may shrink under Amendments 20 and 21 to the PacificCoast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. The Plan was designed to increase economic efficiency through fleet consolidation, reduce environmental impacts, and simplify future decisionmaking. Plaintiffs argued that the Amendments were unlawful under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801-1884, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants where the NMFS complied with both the MSA and NEPA provisions at issue. View "Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Assoc., et al v. Locke, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner claimed that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his counsel induced him to enter a guilty plea at a time when counsel should have known that petitioner was incompetent. At issue on appeal was whether it was unreasonable for the state court to reject petitioner's claim, finding his allegations were belied by the record, absent an evidentiary hearing. The court held that it was not and affirmed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus. View "Hibbler v. Benedetti, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Arizona state prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his state convictions for murder and aggravated assault and the imposition of the death penalty. The court held that the district court correctly determined that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief on his claims that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct in violation of his rights to due process and a fair trial. View "Wood, III v. Ryan" on Justia Law

In this appeal involving parental rights, the court previously published an opinion on a related issue in Mueller v. Auker and that opinion has the facts giving rise to this case. Here, the court held that Detective Rogers, along with Officers Snyder and Green, were entitled to qualified immunity from this lawsuit; the officers were entitled to qualified immunity with regard to the Fourth Amendment claim; the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in admitting the proffered testimony of Dr. Peter Rosen pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or in denying the Muellers' motion on this issue for a new trial; and the district court did not err in dismissing the Muellers' 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against St. Luke's without leave to amend, because it was clear that amendment would be futile. The court addressed the remaining challenges and subsequently affirmed the judgment. View "Mueller, et al v. City of Boise, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that she broke an unwritten rule and suffered the consequences when she challenged a sitting superior court judge for his seat in a local election while she was serving as a temporary superior court commissioner. The court concluded that, while the timing and targeted effect of the superior court's policy were suspicious, the court did not reach the merits of plaintiff's federal or state law retaliation claims because the judges of the superior court's Executive Committee enjoyed legislative immunity for their decision to alter the minimum qualifications to serve as a temporary commissioner. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Schmidt v. Contra Costa County, et al" on Justia Law