Stephen Roy Reinhardt

In Rodgers v. Marshall, Otis Lee Rodgers was convicted in California state court after representing himself at trial and later requested appointed counsel to file a new trial motion, which the trial court denied based on his earlier waiver of trial counsel. After state courts rejected his claims, Rodgers filed a federal habeas petition arguing a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of relief, holding that the post-verdict stage for a new trial motion is a “critical stage” at which the right to counsel applies, and that a prior waiver does not justify denying a timely request for representation. The court reasoned that the trial court’s refusal, upheld by the state appellate court, was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent and required no showing of prejudice. It remanded the case to allow Rodgers counsel to pursue the new trial motion in state court.

criminal lawprocedure

This order from the Ninth Circuit concerns an appeal by Diana Kolev against several car dealership entities and Porsche Cars North America, Inc., arising from a district court case in California. The court withdrew its prior published opinion from September 2011, rendering the parties' petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc moot, and it vacated submission of the case. It acted under its authority to withdraw opinions sua sponte before the mandate issues and to avoid issuing precedent that could not be cited. The panel further deferred further proceedings until the California Supreme Court decides Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, which addresses related issues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Tan Duc Nguyen, the defendant, a Republican congressional candidate, was convicted in federal court of obstruction of justice for failing to fully disclose his role in a 2006 mass mailing of a Spanish-language letter to newly registered Hispanic voters who were Democrats or decline-to-state. The letter warned recipients about potential government tracking of their information and risks of voting if they were non-citizens, which state investigators viewed as possible voter intimidation under California Election Code sections 18540, 18502, and 18543. Nguyen moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant issued during the state probe, arguing insufficient probable cause and First Amendment protection for the political speech. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion, holding that the supporting affidavit established a fair probability of a conspiracy to intimidate targeted voters through the letter’s content and distribution. The court reasoned that such intentional intimidation constitutes a proscribable “true threat” under Virginia v. Black, providing a substantial basis for the warrant regardless of whether state charges were ultimately filed.

electionscriminal lawfree speech

The case concerned a challenge by Pacific Rivers Council to the U.S. Forest Service’s 2004 Framework, which amended the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan and altered management of aquatic and riparian ecosystems across eleven national forests. The plaintiff alleged that the accompanying 2004 Environmental Impact Statement violated NEPA and the APA by failing to adequately analyze the impacts of the new framework on fish and amphibian species. The Ninth Circuit held that the 2004 EIS’s treatment of fish did not satisfy NEPA because it lacked sufficient detail on the effects of logging, road construction, and grazing, but that the analysis of amphibians was adequate. It therefore reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case. The court’s reasoning centered on NEPA’s requirement that a programmatic EIS provide enough information for informed decision-making at that stage, while allowing more site-specific analysis to be deferred to later project-level reviews.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

Diana Kolev sued a car dealership (and Porsche) after a pre-owned vehicle she purchased developed major mechanical issues during the warranty period and the dealership refused to perform repairs, alleging breach of express and implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) plus related state-law claims. The district court granted the dealership’s motion to compel arbitration under a clause in the sales contract and later confirmed an arbitration award largely in the dealership’s favor. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the MMWA prohibits enforcement of pre-dispute binding arbitration clauses covering written warranty claims. Applying Chevron deference, the majority concluded that the statute is ambiguous on the issue but that the FTC’s longstanding interpretation—barring judicial enforcement of such clauses—is a permissible construction of the Act that must be followed.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

Mariam Maronyan sued Toyota after her leased vehicle developed defects during the warranty period that the company allegedly failed to repair adequately, asserting claims under California law and breach of warranty under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA). The district court dismissed the MMWA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Maronyan had not first pursued her complaint through Toyota’s informal California Dispute Settlement Program (CDSP), as the warranty required. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the MMWA’s prior-resort provision, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(a)(3), creates only a prudential exhaustion requirement and affirmative defense rather than a jurisdictional bar. The court reasoned that Congress did not use the “sweeping and direct” language needed to strip federal courts of jurisdiction for failure to exhaust, and that most statutory exhaustion rules are treated as non-jurisdictional unless Congress plainly indicates otherwise.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Kristin Rossum was convicted in California state court of murdering her husband by fentanyl poisoning, and after her conviction was upheld on direct review, she filed a federal habeas petition claiming that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate and challenge the prosecution’s toxicology evidence. The district court denied the petition. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit originally reversed and ordered an evidentiary hearing, but after granting rehearing in light of the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Harrington v. Richter, a per curiam panel held that Richter now controlled the case and affirmed the denial of habeas relief. The majority reasoned that the state court’s summary denial of Rossum’s Strickland claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under the deferential standards of Richter. A dissent argued that an evidentiary hearing remained appropriate on both deficient performance and prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether county jail officials in California violated the First Amendment by refusing to distribute unsolicited copies of the magazine Crime, Justice & America to inmates. A Ninth Circuit panel held that the four-factor reasonableness test from Turner v. Safley applies to such distribution bans, even when the publication is unsolicited, and denied the sheriffs' petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The majority reasoned that Turner has been used in prior cases involving various forms of inmate mail, that the unsolicited nature of the magazine is relevant only to the test's application rather than its threshold applicability, and that the short duration of most county jail stays makes it unrealistic to require advance subscriptions. A dissent from denial of en banc review argued that Turner is inapposite because no inmates' rights were implicated and the ruling improperly interferes with prison administration. The full court declined to rehear the case.

free speechcriminal law

The case involved publishers of the magazine Crime, Justice & America who sued two California county sheriffs, claiming that the jails' refusal to distribute unsolicited copies of the publication to inmates violated their First Amendment rights. The district courts granted summary judgment to the sheriffs after applying the four-factor test from Turner v. Safley. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that material questions of fact existed as to whether the mail policies were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, such as security, administrative burden, or rehabilitation, and remanded for further proceedings. The majority emphasized that the record did not sufficiently justify the blanket refusal to allow either general or individually addressed distribution under the Turner analysis.

free speechcriminal law

The case involved state prisoner Kristin Rossum's appeal from the denial of her federal habeas corpus petition challenging her conviction for murdering her husband by fentanyl poisoning. Rossum argued that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to test autopsy samples for fentanyl metabolites to rule out post-death laboratory contamination, instead conceding the prosecution's cause-of-death theory despite equivocal evidence, chain-of-custody issues at the medical examiner's office, and an implausible suicide defense. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding that Rossum had made a sufficient showing of deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland to warrant further factual development, including the requested forensic testing, because the state courts had not provided a full and fair hearing on the claim.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a breach of contract dispute between Whittlestone, Inc. and Handi-Craft Co. over a 20-year supply agreement that Handi-Craft terminated after two years. Whittlestone sought damages including lost profits, which the district court struck under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) based on a contract clause limiting liability upon termination. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Rule 12(f) does not permit a court to strike a damages claim on the ground that it is legally precluded. The court reasoned that Rule 12(f) is limited to removing redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from pleadings, while challenges to the legal sufficiency of a claim must proceed under Rule 12(b)(6) or summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the contract interpretation issues.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Valerie Campbell, a state prisoner convicted of murder, whose federal habeas corpus petition was dismissed by the district court as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Campbell was entitled to the benefit of the mailbox rule for determining the filing dates of her pro se state and federal petitions. The court further held that because the California Court of Appeal had found one claim in her second state habeas petition timely under state law, the entire petition was properly filed and tolled the federal limitations period for all claims related to her conviction, regardless of whether individual claims in the state petition were timely. The case was remanded for consideration on the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a civil forfeiture action by the United States against personal checks and funds from Yubran Mesle's bank accounts, seized after his brother entered the country without declaring checks totaling $245,000, in violation of federal currency reporting requirements under 31 U.S.C. §§ 5316 and 5324. Mesle, proceeding without a lawyer, submitted conflicting forms to Customs seeking both administrative relief and a court proceeding, which led to an entry of default when the government initiated a judicial forfeiture action. The district court denied Mesle's motion to set aside the default, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Mesle's conduct was not culpable given his lack of representation and confusion over the forms, that he had alleged facts supporting meritorious defenses, and that the government would suffer no prejudice from setting aside the default. The court emphasized that defaults are disfavored and cases should be decided on the merits when possible, vacating the judgment and remanding for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the director of California's Department of Health Care Services could be enjoined from implementing a five percent reduction in Medi-Cal payments to providers such as pharmacies, hospitals, and adult day health care centers under state legislation. Plaintiffs, including provider associations and Medicaid beneficiaries, argued that the reductions violated federal Medicaid requirements in 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, holding that the state had not studied the impact of the rate reductions on efficiency, economy, quality of care, and access to care before implementation, as required by the statute and prior precedent such as Orthopaedic Hospital v. Belshe. The court reasoned that compliance with these procedural mandates is necessary for the state plan to meet federal standards under the Medicaid Act.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a challenge to California Welfare & Institutions Code § 12306.1(d)(6), which capped the state's contribution to wages for providers in the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program at $10.10 per hour, a reduction from the prior $12.10 cap. Plaintiffs, a class of IHSS recipients and their unions, argued that the law was preempted by Section 30(A) of the federal Medicaid Act and sought to enjoin its implementation. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Section 30(A) applies to the state's rate-setting action, that plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on their Supremacy Clause claim, and that the balance of hardships favored the injunction.

healthcarefederal powerlabor & employment

The case concerned a challenge to California laws (AB 5 and later AB 1183) that reduced Medi-Cal fee-for-service payments to healthcare providers by ten percent, which the providers argued violated the federal Medicaid statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1396(a)(30)(A). In a prior opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that the state violated federal law and that providers were entitled to retroactive monetary damages because the state had waived sovereign immunity. The state director then moved to vacate that opinion, arguing the appeal had become moot after AB 1183 ended the ten percent cuts. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the district court's damages award created an ongoing live controversy over whether the state could recoup the extra payments it had been required to make, thereby preserving Article III jurisdiction despite the change in the challenged rate reductions.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

The case involved Steve Klein challenging a City of San Clemente ordinance that banned placing leaflets on unoccupied parked vehicles, claiming it violated his free speech rights while he was distributing materials on immigration policy. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that Klein was likely to succeed on the merits. The court reasoned that the city's interests in preventing litter and promoting aesthetics were not sufficiently supported to justify the broad restriction on speech in a public forum, as the ordinance was not narrowly tailored and the visual impact was minimal.

free speech

The case concerned whether a prior New York conviction for attempted robbery qualified as a crime of violence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, triggering a 16-level enhancement to the sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. The Ninth Circuit held that New York's attempt standard, which requires conduct coming within dangerous proximity to the completed crime, is no broader than the common-law definition requiring a substantial step toward the offense. Relying on the Second Circuit's analysis of New York precedent, the court concluded the definitions are coextensive and therefore the prior conviction counted as a crime of violence. It accordingly affirmed the district court's application of the enhancement and the resulting sentence.

criminal law

The case involved a defendant convicted of illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, who had a prior California felony conviction for attempted robbery under Penal Code § 211. At sentencing, the district court applied a 16-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 because it deemed the prior conviction a crime of violence. The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the California conviction qualified categorically as a crime of violence, first confirming that completed robbery under § 211 does qualify, then addressing whether California's definition of attempt—requiring only slight acts—is broader than the common-law substantial-step standard. The court held that, under binding precedent, the two definitions are functionally equivalent, so the attempted robbery conviction supports the enhancement.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involved healthcare providers, pharmacies, and Medi-Cal beneficiaries seeking to enjoin California from implementing a ten percent reduction in Medicaid payments under state legislation AB 5, on the ground that the cuts violated federal requirements in 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) and were thus preempted under the Supremacy Clause. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, because the state Director had not relied on responsible cost studies assessing the effects of the rate reductions on efficiency, economy, quality, and access to care. The court also ruled that the injunction should be modified to apply to services provided on or after July 1, 2008, concluding that the state had waived sovereign immunity by removing the action to federal court and defending it on the merits. The decision rested on prior circuit precedent requiring such studies before implementing payment changes and on Eleventh Amendment case law distinguishing prospective from retrospective relief based on the date of service.

healthcarefederal power