Jacqueline Hong-Ngoc Nguyen

In Reed v. Baca, plaintiff Phillip John Reed sued Sheriff Lee Baca, Los Angeles County, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, alleging that deputies improperly arrested him pursuant to a misdemeanor warrant issued for his brother and then detained him overnight even after he presented judicial clearance papers and his fingerprints failed to match the warrant subject. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment after a hearing. Deputies had probable cause for the arrest because Reed's physical appearance, driver's license information, and other identifiers matched the warrant abstract. Although Reed's LiveScan fingerprints returned no matching criminal record and he was ultimately released the following afternoon after a public defender identified the mismatch at the courthouse, the court concluded that the booking and detention procedures followed did not violate Reed's constitutional rights and that plaintiff could not raise an unpleaded failure-to-train theory at summary judgment.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved the United States seeking reimbursement under CERCLA for EPA response costs to clean up hazardous chemical contamination on a Glendale property that is part of a Superfund site, along with a civil penalty against owner Hovsep Boghossian for his inadequate response to an EPA information request. The court granted the United States' second motion for partial summary judgment, awarding recovery of at least $1,392,734.14 in costs incurred through September 2010 and imposing a $37,500 penalty. The ruling rested on undisputed facts establishing the property's in rem liability and Boghossian's liability as an owner-operator for costs consistent with the National Contingency Plan, as well as his late and deficient compliance with the information request.

environmentpropertyprocedure

The case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Miguel Orozco, who was convicted in 1982 of second-degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life. In 2006, the California Board of Parole Hearings denied him parole suitability, citing factors including the commitment offense involving multiple victims, his prior criminal record and alcohol abuse, insufficient participation in self-help programs like AA/NA, lack of documented parole plans, and ongoing need for programming to manage stress. Orozco exhausted state remedies and challenged the denial in federal court, arguing it lacked sufficient evidence and was influenced by an alleged no-parole policy. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the petition with prejudice on the ground that some evidence supported the Board's finding of unreasonable risk to public safety, particularly the risk of alcohol relapse, and that other claims were unsupported.

criminal lawfederal power

The case involved the United States seeking civil forfeiture of two Nissan Skyline vehicles on grounds they were illegally imported, with claimant GT-A International, which had purchased the vehicles, moving for their return. The claimant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing that the government's failure to timely arrest the property and publish notice deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction under the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. The court denied the motion, finding that it had jurisdiction because the government cured the defect by eventually arresting the vehicles and the claimant had actual notice of the proceedings. The core reasoning drew on Ninth Circuit precedent in United States v. 2,164 Watches, which permits courts to exercise discretion over untimely service after considering delay, prejudice to the claimant (none found here), and prejudice to the government if the case were dismissed.

criminal lawprocedureproperty