This case involved a federal prisoner's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons' collection of restitution payments through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. The petitioner had been ordered at sentencing to pay restitution 'immediately' following convictions for armed bank robbery, but argued that this order improperly delegated the court's duty under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act to set a payment schedule based on his financial resources. The Ninth Circuit held that where a sentencing court fails to consider the defendant's ability to pay immediately, an order of immediate payment impermissibly shifts that judicial responsibility to the BOP. The court therefore addressed the validity of the underlying restitution order in the context of the habeas claim.
The case involved Charles Lee White's appeal from his federal convictions for conducting the affairs of a criminal street gang enterprise through racketeering, conspiracy, and committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering. White argued that the district court should have held a second competency hearing on its own initiative after he refused to cooperate with his attorneys, following an earlier finding that he had regained competency. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to order another hearing. The court reasoned that the evidence—including a prior competency evaluation, counsel's observations that White was choosing not to cooperate, and the judge's extensive experience with the defendant—did not necessarily create a bona fide doubt about White's ability to understand the proceedings or assist in his defense.
Former employees of a bankrupt casino and their union sued the company's individual managers for unpaid wages under Nevada state law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court dismissed all claims, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part after the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the managers could not be held liable as employers under Nevada statutes. The court reversed the dismissal of the FLSA claim, holding that individual managers with operational control can be personally liable for unpaid wages even when the employer corporation has filed for bankruptcy, as the automatic stay does not extend to such non-debtor defendants. The union's standing issue became moot due to the state-law ruling.
The case involved Global Horizons, a company that recruits temporary foreign agricultural workers under the H-2A visa program, which appealed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction against a three-year debarment imposed by the Department of Labor. The DOL had barred the company from future certifications after finding it sought approvals for nonexistent jobs and provided false information about terminating U.S. workers. Global Horizons missed the seven-day deadline to request an administrative hearing before an ALJ and later sought equitable tolling, which the ALJ denied after detailed analysis. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that review under the Administrative Procedure Act is narrow and that the ALJ had provided a rational explanation for rejecting tolling, so Global Horizons failed to raise serious questions on the merits warranting injunctive relief. The court noted that arguments about the debarment length or constitutional issues were not properly before it due to the untimely administrative appeal.
In Doe v. Woodford, the petitioner, who had pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in 1998, sought federal habeas corpus relief after state courts denied his claims that his plea was involuntary and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition but certified the issue of whether the plea was involuntary given that the petitioner had only about two hours to decide on the day of trial, though he had rejected a similar offer earlier. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding under AEDPA that the state courts' rejection of the claims was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the petitioner had affirmed the voluntariness of his plea in a thorough colloquy and the limited additional time did not render the plea coerced.
The case concerned the U.S. Forest Service's decision to ban recreational rock climbing at Cave Rock, a site on National Forest land near Lake Tahoe, after determining that such activity desecrated a place of central religious and cultural importance to the Washoe Tribe while also damaging its archaeological and historical features. The Access Fund, a climbing advocacy organization, sued, claiming the ban violated the Establishment Clause by advancing religion and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Ninth Circuit upheld the ban, reasoning that the prohibition served multiple secular purposes, including preservation of a culturally and historically significant site with dual religious and non-religious value, and was supported by extensive study and public comment rather than solely religious considerations. The court drew on precedents like Van Orden v. Perry to conclude that government actions accommodating both religious and secular interests do not inherently breach constitutional limits when they do not coerce religious observance.
