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

The government appealed the district court's dismissal of an indictment charging defendant with escape from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. 751(a). The district court concluded that defendant was not in "custody" within the meaning of section 751(a) when he left the residential reentry center where he was residing as a condition of his supervised release. The court agreed with the district court, concluding that defendant was not in custody, not serving a prison sentence, nor under conditions equivalent to custodial incarceration. View "United States v. Burke" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to coercion and enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b). Defendant contended that the district court erred when it calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range for his offense. The court held that the district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. 3A1.1 where the district court failed to determine that the victim was less able to defend herself and more deserving of societal protection than the typical minor enticed to participate in unlawful sexual activity nor did that court base its application of the adjustment on a finding that, by choosing the victim, defendant reached a new level of depravity as compared to other perpetrators of his crime. The court also held that the district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. 4B1.5(a) because defendant's juvenile adjudication did not constitute a "sex offense conviction." View "United States v. Nielson" on Justia Law

This dispute arose in the context of a multi-million dollar tax refund case pending in the district court. The government filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, requesting that the court vacate four district court orders directing the government to be represented at an initial court settlement conference by a representative with full authority to settle a civil tax refund lawsuit. The court held that the district court had the authority to order parties, including the federal government, to participate in mandatory settlement conferences, but that the exercise of such authority was subject to review for abuse of discretion. Based on the facts of this case, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in ordering a government representative with full settlement authority to appear at an initial settlement conference. Accordingly, the court granted mandamus relief and directed the district court to vacate the dispute orders. View "USA v. USDC, Mariana" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, injured in a bicycling accident, disputed Unum Life Insurance Company's calculation of his pre-disability earnings upon which his disability benefits were based. The court agreed with the district court that the applicable standard of review was abuse of discretion. The district court also correctly held that Unum was responsible both for evaluating benefits claims and paying them, it operated under a conflict of interest, which must be weighed as a factor in determining whether there was an abuse of discretion. However, in determining what weight ought to be given the conflict, the district court erred in three ways: First, it failed to apply the traditional rules of summary judgment to its analysis of whether and to what extent a conflict of interest impacted Unum's benefits determination. Second, it incorrectly held that certain internal memoranda between Unum's claims analyst and its in-house counsel were not discoverable. Finally, it did not take into account substantial evidence that Unum's conflict of interest infiltrated the entire decision-making process and therefore ought to be accorded significant weight. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Stephan v. Unum Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

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