District Court, D. Arizona — appointed by George H.W. Bush
Center for Biological Diversity v. Wildlife Services
District Court, D. Arizona · 2009-08-11 · cited 1×
This case involved conservation groups seeking unredacted records from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services program under the Freedom of Information Act regarding Mexican wolf captures, depredation incidents, and related actions in the Southwest. The agency had redacted GPS coordinates from the records, arguing they were exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 6 to protect the privacy of private cooperators and under Exemption 3 pursuant to a later-enacted statute protecting geospatial agricultural data. The court denied the agency's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' motion, holding that the coordinates must be released because the agency failed to demonstrate a substantial privacy interest or credible threat of harm to individuals and because the cited statute could not be applied retroactively to the pre-enactment records request.
environmentfederal powerprocedure
Spreitz v. Ryan
District Court, D. Arizona · 2009-05-12 · cited 1×
In this case, Christopher J. Spreitz filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1994 Arizona convictions for first-degree murder, sexual assault, and kidnapping, along with his resulting death sentence, based on claims including ineffective assistance of counsel and other constitutional violations arising from his 1989 arrest and trial. The court had previously dismissed some claims and denied evidentiary development on others, finding that many issues were not diligently pursued in state post-conviction proceedings. It now addresses the remaining claims and concludes that Spreitz is not entitled to relief, primarily because the claims were either procedurally defaulted for failure to exhaust state remedies in a proper manner or lacked merit under applicable standards. The decision relies on principles of exhaustion requiring fair presentation of federal claims to state courts and reviews the record showing that trial evidence and counsel's performance did not support habeas relief.
criminal lawfederal power
Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne
District Court, D. Arizona · 2009-03-30 · cited 6×
This case involves environmental organizations challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's refusal to designate critical habitat or prepare a recovery plan for the jaguar under the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs contended that the ESA requires these measures for the species, which has been periodically documented in the southwestern U.S. as part of populations centered in Mexico, while defendants argued that their decision was reasonable based on the administrative record, scientific expertise, and statutory standards. The court granted plaintiffs' summary judgment motions in part and denied defendants' cross-motion, concluding that the agency failed to base its determination on the best available science and that critical habitat could provide conservation value even without current evidence of breeding in the U.S. The matter was remanded for further consideration of relevant scientific research and reports.
environment
Guardas v. United States
District Court, D. Arizona · 2009-02-18 · cited 1×
The case involved an undocumented alien who was shot in the face by a U.S. Border Patrol agent during a vehicle stop while transporting other illegal aliens; the plaintiff sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging both negligence and assault and battery. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendant on both counts. The court found that the discharge was intentional, not negligent, because the agent was an expert marksman and accidental discharges of the weapon were rare. The court further concluded that the shooting was justified because the agent reasonably believed the plaintiff was reaching for a gun, based on the plaintiff's failure to comply with commands, the presence of concealed passengers, the stop location next to a guardrail, and the appearance of a shiny metallic belt that resembled a firearm.
immigrationcriminal lawfederal powertorts & liability
United States v. Santillan
District Court, D. Arizona · 2008-07-14 · cited 16×
In United States v. Santillan, the defendant was indicted on charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana following his detention near the U.S.-Mexico border, where he was observed acting as a suspected spotter for drug-smuggling trucks. The case centered on the defendant's motion to suppress evidence from his cell phone, which an agent seized when the defendant refused to stop using it during the incident, fearing he was warning the smugglers. The court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, holding that the seizure and search were justified as a search incident to arrest due to exigent circumstances involving officer safety and evidence preservation amid an ongoing high-speed pursuit. The ruling also noted that any evidence from the phone would have been inevitably discovered from other lawfully seized cell phones in the smuggling vehicles.
criminal lawprocedure
United States v. Olivarez-Moreno
District Court, D. Arizona · 2008-02-22
In United States v. Olivarez-Moreno, the defendant, charged with illegal re-entry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, moved to dismiss the indictment by collaterally attacking his prior removal order, claiming it was fundamentally unfair because the immigration judge incorrectly classified his Utah attempted forgery conviction as an aggravated felony and failed to properly advise him of his rights. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion, finding that the conviction met the statutory definition of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(R) and (U), that the deportation hearing transcript showed the judge based the finding on the conviction facts rather than solely on the defendant's statements, and that the defendant was adequately advised of his rights in a group proceeding, understood them, and made a knowing waiver of appeal. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full, overruled the defendant's objections, and denied the motion to dismiss, leaving the case set for trial.
immigrationcriminal law