Eastern District of California Blog

Ninth Circuit Affirms EDCA Court's Ruling Against Trump's Request to Enjoin CA Sanctuary Laws

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dealt another blow to President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda on Thursday, rejecting the administration’s bid to block two California “sanctuary” laws that limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts.  [See United States v. California, 18-16496 (9th Cir. 4/18/19)] 

The San Francisco-based appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that denied the administration’s request for an injunction, which would have the effect of immediately blocking Senate Bill 54, also called the California Values Act, which restricts how and when state law enforcement can interact with federal immigration authorities. The statute quickly became a flashpoint between the Trump administration and state lawmakers.

The three-judge panel also upheld the lower court decision denying an injunction against Assembly Bill 450, which created rules for how employers must handle federal immigration audit requests, commonly called I-9 audits. Both bills were passed in 2017.

The U.S. government’s lawsuit attempting to overturn those laws will continue to proceed in district court, the California Department of Justice confirmed on Thursday. The Ninth Circuit, however, concluded Thursday that the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenges to AB 450 and SB 54.

Sacramento Bee, 4/18/19

 

Hm? Ninth Circuit Holds Theft By Police Does Not Violate a Person's Clearly-Established Constitutional Rights

Two businessmen who claimed they were robbed of more than $225,000 by police in Fresno, California during an investigation into illegal gambling saw their civil rights lawsuit dismissed last week, when the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it was “not obvious” that theft by cop would violate their Fourth Amendment rights. Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Milan Smith held that even if police officers did steal (an allegation they repeatedly denied), the two men “did not have a clearly established Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from the theft of property seized pursuant to a warrant.” As a result, the officers would still be entitled to “qualified immunity” and could not be sued for damages in federal court.

Forbes, 3/26/19

Ninth Circuit Remands Schweder Marijuana Case for McIntosh Evidentiary Hearing

In EDCA defendant Bryan R. Schweder's appeal, the Ninth Circuit issued this order Tuesday remanding his federal marijuana case to the district court "for the sole purpose of conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether, at the times that acts giving rise to his conviction for conspiracy to manufacture marijuana occurred, [Schweder] had 'strictly complied with all relevant conditions imposed by state law on the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana'" under United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1179 (9th Cir. 2016) (available here).  (Remember this case.  It's the one I blogged about extensively where, after a multi-day evidentiary hearing, Judge Mueller ruled that the classification of marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance was not unconstitutional.)   McIntosh is the case where the Ninth Circuit held that a congressional appropriations rider prohibits the Department of Justice from spending funds for the prosecution of persons who engaged in conduct permitted by state medical marijuana laws and who fully complied with such law. 

The remand order was issued one day after oral argument in San Francisco before Ninth Circuit judges Alex Kozinski and Andrew Hurwitz, and visiting N.D. W.Va. judge Irene M. Keeley.  At the Ninth Circuit's website, you can watch or listen to the argument.  My favorite part is when the Assistant U.S. Attorney steps up to the podium (18:40) and announces himself "for the United States."  Judge Kozinski asks, how can you do that?  Did you pay your own way here?  Did you take a leave from the government?  When he says no, the judge inquires,"why aren't you violating the rider?"  Later, Judge Kozinski questions whether the prosecution committed legal "blackmail" (22:40-23:25; see also 25:45-27:47) by requiring Schweder to take its plea bargain without waiting for the then-pending McIntosh appeal to be decided.

In his appeal, Schweder argued, among other things, that because he was complying with California's medical marijuana laws, his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.  Most of the argument is over what the appropriate remedy should be if Schweder's conduct was consistent with California law.   Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit remanded to the district court to determine whether Schweder complied with California law.  The panel retained jurisdiction for further consideration of the appeal after the district court rules on whether Schweder complied with California's medical marijuana laws.

 

Recent Ninth Circuit decisions in EDCA cases

Here are three recent Ninth Circuit decisions in appeals from EDCA convictions after jury trials:

1) Matthew Keys's conviction and sentence were affirmed yesterday here;

2) Charles and Jeremy Michael Head's convictions and sentences in their rescue mortgage fraud case were affirmed today here;

3) Erik Green's mortgage fraud conviction was reversed last Thursday for failing to allow the defendant's expert testimony here.

Also a reversal of an EDCA denial of SSI benefits here.

And another reversal of an EDCA order remanding a case to California state court for lack of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act here.

Matthew Keyes Ninth Circuit Oral Argument

On June 13, 2017, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in the EDCA Matthew Keys case.  Panel consists of Ninth Circuit Judges Patricia Schroeder and N.R. Smith with visiting SDCA district judge Anthony J. Battaglia.  As all Ninth Circuit arguments are now streamed lived and archived on youtube, you can watch the argument here.  

Ninth Circuit Reverses EDCA Court's Denial Of Habeas Relief in Sacramento Robbery-Murder

[In Weeden v. Johnson, No. 14-17366], a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel on Friday threw out the conviction of a teenage girl who prosecutors said played a key role in a 2005 Sacramento robbery-murder.

Sarah Weeden was 14 years old at the time of the Aug. 5, 2005, shooting death of Navnil Chand, who was 17. According to testimony at Weeden’s 2008 trial, she had agreed to meet Chand at Caymus Park for a date and directed him there by cellphone. When he arrived, a gunman identified as Sertice Melonson, then 23, waited to rob him. During the robbery, Melonson shot and killed Chand.

* * *

“We are just delighted for Sarah and her family,” said Charles M. Bonneau Jr., the Sacramento attorney who handled Weeden’s appeal. “She was just a little girl when all this happened, and we’re convinced she will ultimately be vindicated and released.” 

In an opinion issued Friday, the three-judge panel on a 2-1 vote granted Weeden a writ of habeas corpus on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Her lawyer was Michael G. Bowman, who is now a Sacramento Superior Court judge. Before he was appointed to the bench by Gov. Jerry Brown, Bowman had a reputation as one of the best defense lawyers in town.

Sac Bee, 4/21/17

Ninth Circuit Reinstates Kings County Jail Wrongful Death Suit

A federal appellate court has reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of an inmate who was killed by his co-defendant and cellmate inside the Kings County Jail five years ago.

Judge Lawrence O’Neill dismissed the federal civil rights lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Fresno in February 2015.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, however, ruled this month that O’Neill erred: “In California, prison officials owe detainees a duty to protect them from foreseeable harm.”

And under California law, “a jailer may be held partially liable even if the harm was primarily due to the detainees’ own negligence,” the ruling says.

The lawsuit centers on the April 2012 killing of John Cotta, 30, of Tulare. In June 2013, Heath Derrick Parnell pleaded guilty to murdering Cotta inside a jail cell that the two men shared.

Fresno Bee, 4/11/17

Ninth Circuit Reverses EDCA Court's Judgment For Plaintiffs In FTCA Case

In S.H. v. United States, No. 15-15000 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2017), the Ninth Circuit vacated the EDCA court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs who brought a Federal Tort Claims Act action against the United States, holding that plaintiffs' claims arose in Spain and thus were barred by the Act's foreign country exception.  Plaintiff S.H. was born prematurely while her family was stationed at a United States Air Force base in Spain and, as a result of her premature birth, S.H. suffered permanent brain injury that led to a diagnosis of cereal palsy after she returned to the United States.

Motion to stay prison sentence based on Ninth Circuit's Medical Marijuana McIntosh decision filed

Tuesday, I blogged about the Ninth Circuit's McIntosh opinion, which held that the Appropriations Act barred the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana cases where the defendants were in compliance with state law.  Today, I learned that Sacramento attorney Bill Portanova filed this motion to stay his client's prison sentence in United States v. Adgate, No. 2:12-CR-00198-MCE, based on the McIntosh decision.   I'd expect many more McIntosh-based motions to follow.

Ninth Circuit Bars Feds From Prosecuting Medical Marijuana Actions That Complied With State Law

In U.S. v. McIntosh, No.15-10117, the Ninth Circuit held today that the Appropriations Act passed by Congress bars the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana cases that comply with state law.  And from a conservative "states' rights" panel.  Here is the opinion's summary:

In ten consolidated interlocutory appeals and petitions for writs of mandamus arising from three district courts in two states, the panel vacated the district court’s orders denying relief to the appellants, who have been indicted for violating the Controlled Substances Act, and who sought dismissal of their indictments or to enjoin their prosecutions on the basis of a congressional appropriations rider, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2242, 2332-33 (2015), that prohibits the Department of Justice from spending funds to prevent states’ implementation of their medical marijuana laws.

The panel held that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to consider the interlocutory appeals from these direct denials of requests for injunctions, and that the appellants have standing to invoke separation-of-powers provisions of the Constitution to challenge their criminal prosecutions.

The panel held that § 542 prohibits DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the prosecution of individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by state medical marijuana laws and who fully complied with such laws. The panel wrote that individuals who do not strictly comply with all state-law conditions regarding the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and that prosecuting such individuals does not violate § 542.

Remanding to the district courts, the panel instructed that if DOJ wishes to continue these prosecutions, the appellants are entitled to evidentiary hearings to determine whether their conduct was completely authorized by state law. The panel wrote that in determining the appropriate remedy for any violation of § 542, the district courts should consider the temporal nature of the lack of funds along with the appellants’ rights to a speedy trial.