Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the Montana Supreme Court: Whether, under Montana law, the public duty doctrine shields a law enforcement officer from liability for negligence where the officer is the direct and sole cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff? View "Bassett v. Lamantia" on Justia Law

Section 1915A of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915A, applies only to claims brought by individuals incarcerated at the time they file their complaints. Plaintiff, a former prisoner, filed suit against defendants, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment and various state laws for injuries he suffered, and the medical treatment he received, after he was struck by shotgun pellets that officers fired. The district court dismissed the complaint. In this case, plaintiff was not incarcerated at the time he filed the complaint and thus should not have been subjected to Section 1915A screening. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. View "Olivas v. Nevada" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a death row inmate, appealed the dismissal of his claims that the ADC policy and practice of inspecting inmates' outgoing legal mail violates his Sixth and First Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed and held that ADC's current inspection policy does not satisfy the standard articulated in Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir. 2014) (Nordstrom I). The panel explained that the standard was not satisfied because the policy calls for page-by-page content review of inmates' confidential outgoing legal mail. The policy also does not satisfy the four-part test identified in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89–91 (1987), because ADC did not produce evidence of a threat to prison security sufficient to justify its policy, and because feasible, readily available alternatives were apparent. View "Nordstrom v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241, contending that a congressional appropriations rider prohibits the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) from using federal funds to incarcerate him and seeking release from custody to remedy the wrongful expenditure. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief, holding that petitioner voluntarily waived his right to bring this challenge through the collateral-attack waiver provision of his plea agreement. View "Davies v. Benov" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, alleging that a sheriff's deputy used excessive force when he shot and killed David Brown in his home. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to the deputy. The panel held that, although a reasonable juror could find a Fourth Amendment violation in this case, it was not clearly established at the time that using deadly force in this situation would constitute excessive force. In this case, the district court did not have the benefit of White v. Pauly, and the cases that plaintiffs cited to did not satisfy White's exacting standard; nor does this case involve an obvious or run-of-the-mill violation. Therefore, the deputy was immune from liability under section 1983 for his use of deadly force. View "S. B. v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit previously affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, but the panel remanded for consideration of his claims of ineffective assistance at trial and on direct appeal. After the district court denied these claims, petitioner sought review from the Ninth Circuit.In this appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that it need not consider petitioner's argument that the district court erred in determining that some claims were outside the scope of the Ninth Circuit's remand, because that determination does not affect the scope of the issues before the panel here; counsel was not ineffective for failing to adequately present an overall defense theory; counsel need not explore the possibility of a mental incapacity defense of impulsivity where such a defense would have been counterproductive; and petitioner's claim that trial counsel was ineffective during voir dire in failing to discover that a juror had been the victim of a violent crime that would have disqualified that juror was also without merit. The panel denied a certificate of appealability as to all other claims and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Greenway v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, holding that RFC was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim challenging the City of Oakland's ordinance regulating unattended donation collection boxes (UDCBs) because the ordinance was content neutral and survived intermediate scrutiny. Assuming that charitable solicitations are protected speech, the Ordinance was content neutral to the extent it regulated speech or expressive activity at all. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the Ordinance plainly served important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of protected speech; was sufficiently narrowly tailored and left alternative avenues of communication for RFC to express its message; and, because RFC did not demonstrate that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim, the court need not address RFC's irreparable harm argument. View "Recycle for Change v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit withdrew its previous opinion and dissent, filing a superseding opinion and dissent. The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs in their suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., against the DOD, seeking the names of foreign students and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. The Ninth Circuit held that the disclosure of the names would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Applying a two-step test to determine whether disclosing the names would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under FOIA Exemption 6, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the affidavits and other evidence submitted by the DOD were sufficient to carry the DOD's burden to establish that disclosure of the requested information gave rise to a nontrivial risk of harassment and mistreatment. Furthermore, the public interest did not outweigh the serious risks that would result from disclosure where any incremental value stemming from the disclosure of the names was small. View "Cameranesi v. US Department of Defense" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendants in plaintiff's suit challenging the constitutionality of section 134-7 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which prohibit plaintiff from owning or possessing firearms because of his 1997 state law conviction for harassment. Although plaintiff stated that he challenged only section 134-7, that statute, in relevant part, merely incorporates federal law. Therefore, plaintiff's argument focuses on the latter federal statutes. The Ninth Circuit held that, as a matter of statutory construction, the unavailability of a procedure for either expungement, set-aside, pardon, or civil rights restoration does not remove plaintiff from the ambit of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9)'s prohibition or, by extension, section 134-7(a)'s prohibition. In regard to plaintiff's Second Amendment challenge, the Ninth Circuit held that, under intermediate scrutiny, the statute addressed a substantial governmental interest and was tailored sufficiently to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. In this case, section 922(g)(9) was not unconstitutionally applied to plaintiff where his argument that his harassment conviction occurred many years ago, and he has not committed any other crimes since that time, was not meaningfully distinguishable from the one the court rejected in United States v. Chovan. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to avail himself of the one restoration mechanism that was available to him under Hawaii law, and he was in no position to argue that Hawaii's restoration mechanisms were constitutionally insufficient. View "Fisher v. Kealoha" on Justia Law

After plaintiff discovered that she was payed less than her male counterparts for the same work, she filed suit under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5; and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code 12940. The County conceded that it paid plaintiff less than comparable male employees for the same work, but raised an affirmative defense to a claim under the Equal Pay Act that the differential was "based on any other factor other than sex." In this case, the County claimed that the pay differential was a result of prior salary. The court concluded that Kouba v. Allstate Insurance Co. is controlling in this case. Kouba held that prior salary can be a factor other than sex, provided that the employer shows that prior salary effectuates some business policy and that the employer uses prior salary reasonably in light of its stated purpose as well as its other practices. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's denial of the County's motion for summary judgment, remanding with instructions for the district court to evaluate the business reasons offered by the County and to determine whether the County used prior salary reasonably in light of its stated purposes as well as its other practices. View "Rizo v. Yovino" on Justia Law