Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the conditions of his confinement as a civil detainee while awaiting the adjudication of an involuntary petition under California's Sexually Violent Predator Act violated substantive due process. The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff's confinement triggered both presumptions under Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931–35 (9th Cir. 2004), that the conditions of his civil detention amounted to punishment. In this case, sexually violent predator detainees in the Twin Towers Correctional Facility were subject to essentially the same conditions of confinement as their criminal counterparts, and conditions in the sexually violent predator unit in the facility were more restrictive than conditions at Coalinga State Hospital. The panel reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for damages against the County and against the sheriff in his official capacity; affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to plaintiff's claims for damages against the sheriff in his individual capacity; and noted that plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was moot because he died during the pendency of this appeal. View "King v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the conditions of his confinement as a civil detainee while awaiting the adjudication of an involuntary petition under California's Sexually Violent Predator Act violated substantive due process. The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff's confinement triggered both presumptions under Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931–35 (9th Cir. 2004), that the conditions of his civil detention amounted to punishment. In this case, sexually violent predator detainees in the Twin Towers Correctional Facility were subject to essentially the same conditions of confinement as their criminal counterparts, and conditions in the sexually violent predator unit in the facility were more restrictive than conditions at Coalinga State Hospital. The panel reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for damages against the County and against the sheriff in his official capacity; affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to plaintiff's claims for damages against the sheriff in his individual capacity; and noted that plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was moot because he died during the pendency of this appeal. View "King v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Department in an action brought by private ambulance companies challenging the reimbursement rate for their transportation of patients covered by Medi-Cal. The panel held that plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of producing evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in their favor and thus the district court did not err in entering judgment in the Department's favor on the Takings Clause claim. The panel reasoned that the ambulance companies lacked a constitutionally protected property interest in a particular reimbursement rate, but the mandatory-care provision of Cal. Health & Safety Code 1317(d) implicated a constitutionally protected property right. The panel held that section 1317(d) did not effect a regulatory taking under the Penn Central test. The panel also held that the ambulance companies did not establish a due process claim regarding DHCS's failure to ensure that Medi-Cal reimbursement rates kept pace with their costs because they lacked a constitutionally protected interest in any particular reimbursement rate. View "Sierra Medical Services Alliance v. Kent" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her minor child filed suit against officers and employees of the Child Protective Services (CPS) division of the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES), alleging violations of plaintiff's constitutuional rights to familial association. In this case, CPS removed the child from plaintiff's custody following the child's hospitalization for depression and suicidal ideation. The panel held that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to state a claim to relief that was plausible on its face. In this case, a reasonable official in defendant's position would know that the available information did not establish reasonable cause to believe that the child was in imminent danger of attempting to commit suicide, or that it was necessary to separate her from her mother, transfer her to another hospital and continue to detain her after medical professionals at the hospital concluded she was a low suicide risk. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the familial association claim against defendants Koile and Pender on the basis of qualified immunity. However, the district court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim that defendants violated plaintiff and her child's due process right to be free from deliberately false statements during juvenile court proceedings. Finally, the district court did not err in dismissing claims against the remaining defendants. View "Keates v. Koile" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of officers in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they forced their way into his home without a warrant, threw him to the ground and then tasered and arrested him. In Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), the Supreme Court held that a warrantless search was unreasonable as to a defendant who was physically present and expressly refused consent to entry. The panel held that Randolph closely paralleled this case, and the warrantless entry into plaintiff's home violated the Fourth Amendment because none of the lawful exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Bonivert v. City of Clarkston" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that a pretrial release officer improperly procured a warrant for plaintiff's arrest in violation of her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures. The panel held that the officer was not protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity for a defective arrest warrant where, given the similarities between his role and those of a parole officer and a law enforcement officer, his action in submitting the bare unsigned warrant should be seen as making a recommendation that the warrant be signed, just like a parole officer recommending revocation or like a police officer submitting documentation for an arrest warrant to a judge. View "Patterson v. Van Arsdel" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief for petitioner, who was criminally convicted in both state and federal court. Petitioner argued that his federal sentence actually commenced on one of the instances when the state prematurely transferred him to the federal authorities, and thus he should receive credit against his federal sentence for the period starting on the date he was erroneously turned over to federal authorities and including all his time in state prison after he was returned to state custody. The panel explained that because the state credited the time the federal authorities erroneously held petitioner against his state sentence, he effectively sought double-credit against both his state and federal sentences for the period between August 2009 and June 2011. The panel held that because these erroneous transfers did not manifest the state's consent to terminate its primary jurisdiction over petitioner, he was not in federal custody for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 3585(a), and therefore the federal sentence did not commence. View "Johnson v. Gill" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit amended an opinion affirming the district court's judgment denying a habeas corpus petition where petitioner sought a custody redetermination as he awaited the outcome of administrative proceedings to determine whether he has a reasonable fear of returning to his native country of El Salvador. The panel held that reinstated removal orders were administratively final for detention purposes, and that the detention of aliens subject to reinstated removal orders was governed by 8 U.S.C. 1231(a), rather than section 1226(a). Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to a bond hearing. View "Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action challenging plaintiffs' exclusion from an enforcement zone set up around a Border Patrol checkpoint area near their homes in rural Arizona. In this case, the district court entered summary judgment before any discovery had occurred. The panel held that the limited record before the district court did not permit the panel to conclude, as a matter of law, that the enforcement zone was a nonpublic forum or, if it was, that the government satisfied the requirements for excluding plaintiffs from that nonpublic forum. On remand, and after appropriate discovery, the panel noted that the district court will need to determine if there remain genuine issues of material fact regarding whether, and what part of, the enforcement zone was a public forum, and whether the government's exclusion policy was permissible under the principles of forum analysis. View "Jacobson v. USDHS" on Justia Law

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), did not require the district court to abstain from hearing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the conditions of pretrial detention in state court. The Ninth Circuit held that the State has acted in good faith throughout this litigation with respect to the substantive merits of petitioner's claim; petitioner's case fell within the irreparable harm exception to Younger where he has been incarcerated for over six months without a constitutionally adequate bail hearing; and petitioner has properly exhausted his state remedies as to his bail hearing. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus, providing that the writ issue unless the California Superior Court conducts a new constitutionally compliant bail hearing within fourteen days after the issuance of the district court's order conditionally granting the petition. View "Arevalo v. Hennessy" on Justia Law