Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of qualified immunity for the sheriff and affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by family members alleging that the sheriff used excessive force when he shot and killed Manuel Longoria. The panel held that the sheriff's credibility or the accuracy of his version of the facts was a central question that had to be answered by a jury. Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because there was a material issue of fact as to whether the sheriff violated Longoria's clearly established constitutional right. However, Longoria's family did not have standing to sue on their own behalves. Finally, the panel reversed the grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' wrongful death claim under Arizona state law, because there was a material dispute of facts as to the use of reasonable deadly force. View "Longoria v. Pinal County" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order dismissing two actions under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). On the merits, the panel affirmed the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction in appeal No. 15-16253, holding that Nationwide was unlikely to succeed on its claim that the First Amendment precludes California from requiring it to make certain truthful disclosures in its mail solicitations. The panel vacated the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction in appeal No. 15-16220, holding that Nationwide was likely to succeed on its claim that the Dormant Commerce Clause precludes California from making in-state incorporation a prerequisite of licensure to engage in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the panel remanded both cases for further proceedings. View "Nationwide Biweekly Admin. v. Owen" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of the petition for habeas relief based on lack of exhaustion claims. In this case, the district court dismissed claims challenging petitioner's murder conviction and death sentence, finding that, although he presented them to the California Supreme Court, he subsequently waived them by means of a handwritten, pro se filing. The panel held that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that petitioner's handwritten form constituted a valid waiver of his right to proceed and that the State failed to carry its burden to the contrary. Therefore, the district court erred by dismissing the claims as unexhausted and the court remanded so that the district court could adjudicate the claims on the merits. View "Kirkpatrick v. Chappell" on Justia Law

A textual and historical analysis of the Second Amendment demonstrates that the Constitution does not confer a freestanding right on commercial proprietors to sell firearms. The en banc court affirmed the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit alleging that the County violated plaintiff's Second Amendment rights, as well as those of his potential customers, when it denied plaintiff conditional use permits to open a gun shop. The panel held that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the County's ordinance impedes any resident of Alameda County who wishes to purchase a firearm from doing so, and thus he failed to state a claim for relief based on infringement of the Second Amendment rights of his potential customers. The panel reasoned that plaintiff could not state a Second Amendment claim based solely on the ordinance's restriction on his ability to sell firearms. View "Teixeira v. County of Alameda" on Justia Law

Threats to sue fall within the purview of the constitutionally protected right to file grievances. Both the filing of a criminal complaint by a prisoner, as well as the threat to do so, are protected by the First Amendment, provided they are not baseless. Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Washington State Penitentiary (WSP), filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was disciplined for threatening to initiate civil litigation and file a criminal complaint against prison officials. The Ninth Circuit held that because plaintiff had alleged cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims regarding his threats to sue, and qualified immunity did not attach, it was improper to dismiss the complaint in its entirety under Rule 12(c). However, in regard to plaintiff's threat to file a criminal complaint, even though it was a constitutionally protected right, qualified immunity attached. Therefore, dismissal of that aspect of the complaint was proper. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "Entler v. Gregoire" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction for a class of non-citizens in removal proceedings who are detained under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a). In this case, the government has already determined that the class members were neither dangerous nor enough of a flight risk to require detention without bond. Nonetheless, the class members remain detained because they are unable to afford bond in the amount set by the immigration officials. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction because plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim. The panel reasoned that the government's current policies failed to provide adequate procedural protections to ensure that detention of the class members was reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. The panel concluded that due process likely requires immigration officials when considering bond determinations to consider financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Furthermore, plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; the balance of the equities favored plaintiffs; and the public interest benefited from the injunction. View "Hernandez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendant used excessive force when he tased and fatally shot her husband. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment and remanded, holding that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. The panel held that it had jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal; viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the husband did not have a clearly established right violated by defendant's use of the taser when the husband was likely under the influence of drugs and was violently resisting arrest; and, in regard to defendant's subsequent use of deadly force against the husband, the husband held no clearly established right not to be shot by defendant. In this case, it was not obvious that defendant's use of deadly force was excessive and there were strong reasons supporting the reasonableness of the shooting. View "Isayeva v. Barry" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition where petitioner challenged his conviction for second degree murder and attempted murder. Petitioner was fourteen years old at the time he was found guilty of the crimes. The panel held that the government relied on a coerced waiver of the right to counsel to secure the conviction because petitioner did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive such right. Because admission of petitioner's confession was not harmless, the panel granted relief under 42 U.S.C. 2254. View "Rodriguez v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, for 22 years, contested in administrative proceedings a California Franchise Tax Board ruling that he owed close to $7.4 million in taxes, penalties, and interest. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which arose from his administrative proceedings. The panel held that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341, barred plaintiff's suit because plaintiff could either pay now and litigate later, or the pay-then-protest remedy provided plaintiff a speedy remedy, even if the protest-then-pay remedy had not. The court also held that, if plaintiff pays and then protests, the California state courts would likely allow plaintiff to add constitutional claims to a state court action challenging the tax. View "Hyatt v. Yee" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the City retaliated against her success in a previous lawsuit by hiring another individual and rejecting plaintiff's application to become City Finance Director. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and held that plaintiff's claims were not barred by claim preclusion, but issue preclusion barred plaintiff from recovering economic damages she already received as a result of the first lawsuit. The panel also held that no reasonable jury could find that plaintiff's suit was a substantial reason for the City's refusal to consider her for the Finance Director position in 2011. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's First Amendment claim did not survive summary judgment. Finally, the panel held that plaintiff's claim under the Oregon Whistleblower Act failed as a matter of law. View "Howard v. City of Coos Bay" on Justia Law