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

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

Plaintiff, a realtor, filed suit under the California False Claims Act (CFCA), Cal. Gov't Code 12650-12655, against defendants on behalf of numerous California counties, alleging that defendants made false representations in naming MERS as a beneficiary in recorded mortgage documents in order to avoid paying recorded fees. Defendants moved to dismiss the qui tam action under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in dismissing his claims as jurisdictionally barred, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Bates v. Mortgage Electronic Registration, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of bringing in illegal aliens without presentation and defendant subsequently appealed. At issue was whether the government could deport an illegal alien who could provide exculpatory evidence from a criminal defendant. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the answer was self-evident pursuant to United States v. Ramirez-Lopez. On remand, the district judge shall decide whether to dismiss the charges against defendant with prejudice, as a consequence of the government's conduct. Should the district court permit a retrial, it shall determine whether the eight other deported witnesses were interviewed by the government agents, and if so, what they each said. The government shall provide testimony or declarations from border agents as to whether they interviewed the remaining members of the group and whether they took notes or otherwise recorded the statements. Defendant must also be allowed to present the videotape of Witness Garcia-Garcia's testimony, the transcript or both, as well as any evidence of what the other eight witnesses said. Defendant shall also be entitled to a missing-witness instruction as Witness Garcia-Garcia and, depending on what the district court finds, to the other eight deported witnesses as well. View "United States v. Leal-Del Carmen" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA dismissing his appeal of an order of removal. Petitioner argued that a finding that he engaged in illegal activity could not properly be made by officers at the border and that he was entitled to counsel until a final administrative determination had been made by an IJ and the BIA. The court held that the border officers were permitted to treat petitioner as an applicant for admission based on their conclusion that he had engaged in illegal activity, without waiting for a final administrative determination. The court also rejected petitioner's claim that his statements admitting the attempt to smuggle his niece across the border were coerced and used against him in violation of due process. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Gonzaga-Ortega, et al v. Holder" on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals concern the aftermath of the shooting of Kristin Marie Maxwell-Bruce by her husband, Lowell Bruce. The Maxwells brought suit against several parties. These interlocutory appeals concern two sets of claims. First, the Maxwells alleged various constitutional violations by the Sheriff's officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Second, the Maxwells sought tort damages under California law against the Viejas defendants, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). The court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity to the Sheriff's officers on the ground of qualified immunity to the Sheriff's officers with regards to the Maxwell's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim and Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims. The court reversed the district court's granting of the Viejas defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to tribal sovereign immunity, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Maxwell, et al v. County of San Diego, et al" on Justia Law