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

In 1988, a California jury sentenced Jerry Grant Frye to death for the first-degree murders of Robert and Jane Brandt. Frye and his girlfriend, Jennifer Warsing, had moved to Amador County to grow marijuana. Warsing testified that Frye, after seeing the devil and feeling threatened, forced her to accompany him to the Brandts' cabin, where he shot and killed them. They then stole the Brandts' valuables and fled to South Dakota, where Frye was later arrested and confessed to the murders. The prosecution's case relied heavily on Warsing's testimony, corroborated by physical evidence and Frye's own statements.The California Supreme Court affirmed Frye's conviction and sentence in 1998. Frye filed a state habeas petition in 2000, claiming his due process rights were violated when jurors saw him shackled during the trial. The California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition on the merits in 2001. Frye then sought federal habeas relief, and in 2022, the district court granted a writ of habeas corpus on the shackling claim, concluding that the shackling prejudiced Frye at both the guilt and penalty phases.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's order. The Ninth Circuit held that Frye did not overcome the significant deference owed to an unreasoned state court decision on the merits under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The court rejected the argument that the right to be free from unjustified guilt-phase shackling was not clearly established federal law at the time of the state court's decision. However, given the limited shackling evidence and the guilt evidence before the state court, the Ninth Circuit concluded that every fairminded jurist would not agree that the state court's harmlessness decision was objectively unreasonable. The case was remanded for further proceedings on Frye's remaining claims. View "FRYE V. BROOMFIELD" on Justia Law

Debbie O'Gorman, facing foreclosure by creditor Grant Reynolds, transferred her property to the Lovering Tubbs Trust for no consideration. This transfer was intended to hinder Reynolds' foreclosure efforts. The Lovering Tubbs Trust and other entities involved in the transfer argued that the Chapter 7 Trustee lacked Article III standing to bring a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 548 because O'Gorman's creditors were not harmed by the transfer.The Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment to the Trustee, finding that O'Gorman's transfer was fraudulent under § 548(a)(1)(A). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed this decision, noting that the Trustee had established a prima facie case of fraudulent transfer and that the appellants failed to present any admissible evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the BAP's decision. The court held that the Trustee had Article III standing because the transfer depleted the estate's assets, causing an injury-in-fact that was redressable by the avoidance sought. The court also clarified that actual harm to creditors is not an element of a fraudulent transfer claim under § 548. The court found that the bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment, as the Trustee provided direct and circumstantial evidence of O'Gorman's fraudulent intent, and the appellants failed to present any evidence to dispute this.The Ninth Circuit also upheld the bankruptcy court's denial of the appellants' request for a continuance to conduct discovery, noting that the appellants did not comply with the requirements of Rule 56(d) by failing to submit an affidavit or declaration specifying the facts they hoped to elicit through further discovery. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in this regard. View "IN RE: THE LOVERING TUBBS TRUST V. HOFFMAN" on Justia Law

The case involves two transgender girls, Jane Doe and Megan Roe, who wish to participate in girls' sports at their respective schools in Arizona. Both girls have not undergone male puberty due to puberty-blocking medication and hormone therapy. Arizona enacted the Save Women’s Sports Act, which prohibits "students of the male sex," including transgender women and girls, from participating in women’s and girls’ sports. The plaintiffs argue that this Act violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona reviewed the case and granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the enforcement of the Act against the plaintiffs. The court found that the Act was adopted with the purpose of excluding transgender girls from girls' sports teams and concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their equal protection and Title IX claims. The court determined that before puberty, there are no significant differences in athletic performance between boys and girls and that transgender girls who receive puberty-blocking medication do not have an athletic advantage over other girls.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, agreeing that the Act discriminates based on transgender status and is subject to heightened scrutiny. The court held that the Act’s categorical ban on transgender girls from participating in girls' sports is not substantially related to the state’s objectives of ensuring competitive fairness and equal athletic opportunities for female student-athletes. The court also found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the preliminary injunction. View "DOE V. HORNE" on Justia Law

Raizel Blumberger filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Ian Tilley, alleging that he failed to provide proper medical care during childbirth, resulting in her injuries. Dr. Tilley was an employee of Eisner Pediatric and Family Medical Services, a federally funded health center deemed a Public Health Service (PHS) employee for 2018. The Attorney General appeared in state court, stating that Dr. Tilley's status was under consideration. A year later, the Attorney General advised that Dr. Tilley was not a deemed employee, leading Dr. Tilley to remove the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 and 42 U.S.C. § 233(l)(1).The United States District Court for the Central District of California remanded the case, finding Dr. Tilley's removal untimely under § 1442 and concluding that the Attorney General satisfied its advice obligations under § 233(l)(1). Dr. Tilley appealed, arguing that the Attorney General failed to properly advise the state court of his deemed status, thus making removal appropriate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court analyzed the timeliness of Dr. Tilley's § 1442 removal under the wrong legal standard and remanded on that basis. The court determined it had jurisdiction to review the district court’s § 233 analysis, despite potential untimeliness. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the Attorney General was obligated under § 233(l)(1) to advise the state court that Dr. Tilley had been a deemed employee during the relevant period. The court reversed the district court’s conclusion that the Attorney General’s notice satisfied § 233(l)(1) and held that the government was obligated to remove the case to federal court. The case was vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "BLUMBERGER V. TILLEY" on Justia Law

Kate Adams, the former Chief of Police for the City of Rancho Cordova, was forced to resign over allegations that she sent racist text messages while working for the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office. The messages, sent in 2013, included offensive images forwarded to two friends during a private conversation. Adams claimed she was merely expressing disapproval of the images. After her resignation, the messages were publicized, leading to further professional and personal repercussions for Adams.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed Adams’s First Amendment retaliation and conspiracy claims, ruling that her speech did not address a matter of public concern. The court found that the private nature of the text messages and their content did not relate to broader societal issues or public interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that Adams’s private text messages, which were part of a casual conversation and not intended for public dissemination, did not constitute speech on a matter of public concern under the Pickering v. Board of Education standard. The court emphasized that the content, form, and context of the messages indicated they were of personal interest rather than public interest. Consequently, Adams’s First Amendment retaliation and conspiracy claims were dismissed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on other unresolved claims. View "ADAMS V. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, challenging the constitutionality of a $63 late fee imposed for failing to pay a parking meter fine within 21 days. The plaintiffs argue that this late fee, which matches the amount of the original fine, violates the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The plaintiffs incurred at least one parking meter citation and late fee, and they assert that the late fee is both facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to individuals who cannot afford to pay it within the specified time frame.The United States District Court for the Central District of California initially granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that the $63 parking fine was not "grossly disproportionate" to the offense of overstaying a parking meter. The court also rejected the challenge to the $63 late fee without providing a detailed rationale. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Ninth Circuit previously upheld the initial fine but remanded the case to determine whether the late fee violated the Excessive Fines Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment for the City regarding the late fee. The Ninth Circuit found that a genuine factual dispute exists about the City's basis for setting the late fee at 100 percent of the parking fine. The court noted that the City provided no evidence on how it determined the $63 late fee amount, making it impossible to conclude as a matter of law that the fee is not "grossly disproportional" to the harm caused by the untimely payment. The court declined to incorporate means-testing into the Excessive Fines Clause analysis, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that the fee should consider individuals' ability to pay. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "PIMENTEL V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

In this case, several plaintiffs challenged Hawaii and California laws that restrict the carrying of firearms in various locations, arguing that these laws violate their Second Amendment rights. The laws in question generally prohibit carrying firearms in places such as parks, beaches, bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, financial institutions, and private property without explicit consent from the property owner.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted a preliminary injunction against Hawaii's law, enjoining the enforcement of the firearm restrictions in parking lots shared by government and non-government buildings, financial institutions, public beaches, public parks, bars, and restaurants that serve alcohol. The court also enjoined the new default rule for private property open to the public. The United States District Court for the Central District of California similarly granted a preliminary injunction against California's law, enjoining the enforcement of firearm restrictions in hospitals, playgrounds, public transit, parks, athletic facilities, places of worship, financial institutions, and private property open to the public.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed these decisions. The court affirmed the preliminary injunctions in part and reversed them in part. The Ninth Circuit held that some places specified by the Hawaii and California laws likely fall within the national tradition of prohibiting firearms at sensitive places, such as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, parks, and similar areas. However, the court found that other places, such as financial institutions and places of worship, do not fall within this tradition. The court also held that the new default rule prohibiting the carry of firearms onto private property without consent is likely unconstitutional in California but not in Hawaii.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunctions to the extent that they enjoin restrictions on firearms at financial institutions, parking lots adjacent to financial institutions, and parking lots shared by government and non-government buildings. The court reversed the preliminary injunctions to the extent that they enjoin restrictions on firearms at bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, beaches, parks, and similar areas, and the new default rule prohibiting the carry of firearms onto private property without consent in Hawaii. View "WOLFORD V. LOPEZ" on Justia Law

Kyle J. Rodney was convicted in Nevada state court of multiple charges, including burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit murder, robbery with use of a deadly weapon, attempted murder with use of a deadly weapon, and battery with use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm. The convictions stemmed from an incident where Rodney and an accomplice attacked and severely injured Ralph Monko after Monko won a significant amount of money at a casino. Monko's injuries were severe, including head trauma and long-term physical and cognitive impairments.Rodney's convictions were affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court. He then filed a pro se post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in state court, which was denied without the appointment of counsel or an evidentiary hearing. A second post-conviction petition was also denied on procedural grounds. Rodney subsequently filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising several ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims. The federal district court found these claims procedurally defaulted. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded for the district court to determine if the procedural default could be excused under Martinez v. Ryan, which allows for such an excuse if the IAC claims are substantial.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada, on remand, initially allowed new evidence and discovery but later ruled that it could not consider new evidence due to the Supreme Court's decision in Shinn v. Ramirez. The district court concluded that Rodney's IAC claims were not substantial based on the state-court record alone and denied relief.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Rodney did not fail to develop the state-court record within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) and that the district court erred in limiting its analysis to the state-court record. However, the Ninth Circuit found that even considering the new evidence, Rodney's IAC claims were not substantial. The court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of Rodney's trial or sentencing would have been different but for counsel's alleged errors. Thus, the procedural default of Rodney's claims could not be excused, and the denial of his habeas petition was affirmed. View "RODNEY V. GARRETT" on Justia Law

Kekai Watanabe, an inmate at the Federal Detention Center in Honolulu, was severely injured during a gang-related assault in July 2021. Despite his serious injuries, including a fractured coccyx and bone chips in surrounding tissue, the prison nurse only provided over-the-counter medication and refused to send him to a hospital. Watanabe was kept in solitary confinement for over two months and repeatedly requested medical attention, which was largely ignored. He was not properly diagnosed until February 2022 and had not seen a specialist by the time of the court proceedings.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii initially allowed Watanabe’s claim against the nurse to proceed but later dismissed it, concluding that no Bivens remedy existed for his Eighth Amendment claim. Watanabe appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that Watanabe’s claim did not present a new Bivens context, as it was not meaningfully different from the Supreme Court’s decision in Carlson v. Green, where an implied damages action was recognized under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. The court found that Watanabe’s allegations were sufficiently similar to those in Carlson, thus allowing his Bivens claim to proceed.Additionally, the Ninth Circuit construed Watanabe’s request for injunctive relief related to his ongoing medical care as standalone claims for injunctive relief, not under Bivens. The court remanded the case to the district court to address whether Watanabe may amend his request for injunctive relief and to address any such claims in the first instance. View "WATANABE V. DERR" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, property developers owning three hotels, alleged that Defendants, rival developers operating the Hollywood Athletic Club, abused the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processes to extort funds in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Defendants challenged several of Plaintiffs' hotel projects through CEQA objections and lawsuits, which Plaintiffs claimed were baseless and intended to obstruct their developments.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, holding that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protected Defendants' petitioning activities from statutory liability under the First Amendment. The district court found that Defendants' actions were not objectively baseless and thus did not fall within the sham litigation exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The case was transferred from Judge Wright to Judge Gutierrez, who reconsidered and reversed the prior denial of summary judgment, concluding that the previous decision was clearly erroneous and would result in manifest injustice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reconsidering the prior judge's ruling. It also agreed that Defendants' CEQA challenges were not objectively baseless, as the actions had some merit and were not brought solely for an improper purpose. The court emphasized that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine provides broad protection to petitioning activities to avoid chilling First Amendment rights. Consequently, the court did not need to address Defendants' additional arguments regarding the applicability of RICO to litigation activities. View "RELEVANT GROUP, LLC V. NOURMAND" on Justia Law