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

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

Plaintiff is a recognized figure in aviation history and defendants are retired commercial airline captains who became friends with plaintiff in the 1980s. Defendants sell aviation-related memorabilia, including items related to or signed by plaintiff. In 2008, plaintiff brought claims against defendants, including violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., California's common law right to privacy, and California's statutory right to publicity, Cal. Civ. Code 3344. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff contended that the district court should not have struck his declaration, which contained comprehensive details he did not remember at his deposition. He also contended that, under California's single-publication rule, defendants "republished" statements about him on their website - when they modified unrelated information on their website. The court rejected both arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Yeager, et al v. Bowlin, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his jury conviction and sentence for three counts of wire fraud, two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm, and one count each of extortion, making a false statement, destruction of a letter box, and possession of a firearm not identified by a serial number. The court reversed the district court's decision to group Counts 1 through 7 together where the primary victim of the mailbox-related charges was distinct from the primary victim of the extortion and wire fraud charges. The court also concluded that three of five sentencing enhancements were imposed in error and remanded for recalculation of defendant's sentencing range. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

These two matters have been consolidated for a single opinion because they both arose out of the same labor dispute. HTH and the Union filed cross-petitions from the 2011 ruling of the NLRB that between August 2005 and May 2008, HTH committed unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. HTH appealed from a preliminary injunction that required it to remedy certain actions taken in 2010. These actions were the subject of unfair labor practice charges currently pending before the NLRB. The court affirmed a preliminary injunction against HTH pending final NLRB disposition of the 2005-2008 unfair labor practice charges. The NLRB resolved those charges in its 2011 ruling, which HTH then sought to overturn. Notwithstanding the 2010 injunction, HTH repeated the very actions that had been enjoined that year, prompting another round of litigation before the NLRB. The district court granted a second preliminary injunction and HTH subsequently appealed that injunction. The court affirmed the injunction and granted the NLRB's application for enforcement of its 2011 ruling. View "Frankl v. HTH Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a securities fraud action individually and on behalf of all other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Rigel between certain dates, pursuant to sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff also brought claims on behalf of itself and persons who purchased Rigel stock traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with Rigel's February 2008 stock offering. The court affirmed the district court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint where plaintiff failed to meet the pleading requirements. View "Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT v. Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and native of India, challenged the IJ's finding that he knowingly filed a frivolous application. Petitioner admitted he filed a fabricated asylum application that was supported by fraudulent documents. At issue was whether the written advisals provided on the standard I-589 asylum application form constituted sufficient notice under 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(4)(A). Because the court concluded that the asylum application form petitioner signed provided sufficient notice under section 1158(d)(4)(A), the court denied the petition for review. View "Cheema v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, nine homeless individuals living in the "Skid Row" district of Los Angeles, charged that the City violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by seizing and immediately destroying their unabandoned personal possessions, temporarily left on public sidewalks while plaintiffs attended to necessary tasks such as eating, showering, and using restrooms. Finding a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the district court enjoined the City from confiscating and summarily destroying unabandoned property in Skid Row. On appeal, the City argued that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in evaluating plaintiffs' claims. The court concluded that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protected homeless persons from government seizure and summary destruction of their unabandoned, but momentarily unattended, personal property. Accordingly, the court denied the City's appeal. View "Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law