Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 2:22-cv-01725-KJM-CSK

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant officer in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by a Nevada state prisoner alleging First Amendment retaliation and access-to-courts claims. The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo, determining whether genuine issues of material fact existed and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Regarding the access-to-courts claim, the court applied the standard that prisoners must demonstrate actual injury, defined as actual prejudice to their litigation such as an inability to meet a filing deadline or present a claim, noting there is no freestanding right to a law library. The court held that Gosztyla failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the officer caused such actual injury. Regarding the retaliation claim, the court applied the elements for prison retaliation claims, including the burden on the inmate to prove the absence of legitimate correctional goals or that the conduct was not narrowly tailored to achieve them. The court concluded that Gosztyla’s conclusory allegations and claims of perjury by witnesses did not create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the officer took an adverse action based on protected conduct. The judgment is affirmed, leaving the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant in place.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 3:24-cv-08233-DWL

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Joseph Lathus’s civil rights action brought under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that Lathus abandoned his challenge to the district court’s alternative grounds for dismissal—specifically, immunity and failure to state a plausible claim—by failing to raise them in his opening brief. Additionally, the court found no error in the district court’s treatment of the second amended complaint as the operative pleading, its denial of Lathus’s motions for entry of default and default judgment because defendants had indicated an intent to defend, and its dismissal without leave to amend due to futility. The practical consequence is that the district court’s order dismissing the action is affirmed, all pending motions are denied, and the case is closed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 2:09-cr-01247-SRB-1

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Phillip Gomez’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Gomez lacked extraordinary and compelling circumstances under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3) and that the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support release. The appellate court found that the district court sufficiently explained its decision by acknowledging Gomez’s arguments regarding his mother’s health and his positive prison record, noting that a lengthy explanation was not required when the context and record reflect that the sentencing judge considered the defendant’s substantive arguments and offered a reasoned basis for the decision. Consequently, Gomez’s appeal is denied and the district court’s order stands.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 2:22-cv-01938-PA-PVC

The ninth-circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s order denying backpay to remedy a violation of Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 156. The court held that the district court erred in treating the award of backpay as discretionary, concluding instead that maintaining the status quo during a major dispute is an absolute statutory command that leaves no room for equitable discretion. Because Section 6 creates a right to the status quo itself, and because no other form of retrospective relief (such as damages) is available to vindicate this right, mandatory injunctive relief restoring the status quo—including backpay—is the only judicial remedy for past violations. The court applied the traditional burden-shifting framework used in labor statutes, requiring the Union to establish a prima facie case of violation and gross backpay amount, after which the burden shifts to the employer to prove mitigation of liability. The court determined that the district court’s reasons for denying backpay were legally insufficient or unsupported by the record, specifically noting that the provision of health insurance benefits did not automatically offset wage violations without evidence carried by the employer. On remand, the district court must determine the gross amount of backpay due and evaluate whether Sky Chefs’ liability should be mitigated by any amounts already paid or other equitable factors.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The ninth-circuit granted the petition for review in part, denied it in part, and remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for further proceedings. The court held that Rodriguez forfeited her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture because she failed to challenge the dispositive finding of no nexus between the alleged harm and a protected ground, and did not contest the waiver of her CAT challenge in her opening brief. However, the court remanded the case to allow the BIA to consider whether a claims-processing violation occurred due to a defective Notice to Appear issued by the Government, noting that Rodriguez had exhausted this issue before the immigration judge and the BIA. The court granted Rodriguez’s motion to stay removal pending these proceedings.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 24-1134

The ninth-circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision upholding the bankruptcy court’s orders denying creditor Sharon Elizabeth Neal’s motions to dismiss debtor Natalia Aleksandrovna Neal’s Chapter 13 case and her renewed motion for reconsideration. The court applied a de novo standard of review to the BAP’s decision and an abuse of discretion standard to the bankruptcy court’s rulings on dismissal and reconsideration. The appellate court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions to dismiss because the debtor’s stipulation to a state court judgment did not constitute a material default under the confirmed plan; the stipulation left the loan in full force, did not increase the debt amount, and the debtor had fully disclosed the property and debt in her schedules. Additionally, the court affirmed that the bankruptcy court properly construed the renewed motion as one for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and correctly denied it because the creditor raised the same arguments previously rejected without presenting newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. The practical consequence is that the Chapter 13 case remains active and the dismissal orders are vacated only to be reinstated by this affirmation, leaving the debtor subject to the confirmed plan.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 2:19-cr-00348-SVW-1

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of an 18-month supervised release revocation sentence, rejecting the appellant’s claim that the sentence was impermissibly imposed to promote his rehabilitative needs. Applying a plain error standard of review, the court determined there was no error because the sentencing record reflected that the judge relied on permissible considerations under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), specifically Gallardo’s inability to comply with supervision terms, his commission of a new criminal offense, and the danger he poses to the public. The court distinguished the case from precedent requiring remand where a judge explicitly cites rehabilitation as the basis for a longer prison term, finding no such indication in Gallardo’s sentencing explanation.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 6:16-cr-00015-BMM-1

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying John Gregory Alexander Herrin’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Applying de novo review, the court held that Herrin failed to demonstrate valid reasons for his delay in challenging his conviction, which is a dispositive requirement for such relief. The court found that Herrin’s references to custodial and pandemic-related constraints did not explain why he did not file a motion while in custody, nor did they justify the yearlong delay after his supervised release term ended. Because Herrin failed to meet this conjunctive requirement, the court denied relief without addressing remaining arguments regarding structural defects or evidence admissibility.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 2:12-cr-00126-TLN-1

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a 24-month sentence. The court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio* in response to counsel’s *Anders v. California* brief, which identified no non-frivolous arguments for appeal. Finding no such arguments, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the underlying judgment.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 5:24-cv-02704-JGB-SP

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s orders dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against AAA Life Insurance Company and Genene Dunn for lack of standing, denying motions to remand, and denying requests for leave to amend and post-judgment relief. The court held that the district court correctly applied the doctrine of fraudulent joinder to determine that Dunn was not a party to the life insurance policy and thus could not be subject to colorable breach of contract or bad faith claims; consequently, Dunn’s presence did not defeat diversity jurisdiction, and her consent to removal was not required. Regarding AAA Life Insurance Company, the court ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing under California law because she was neither a party to nor a beneficiary of the insurance policy, meaning she could not enforce the contract or recover extra-contractual damages. The court further determined that the federal probate exception did not bar jurisdiction because the suit sought damages rather than estate administration. Finally, the appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend, as such amendments would have been futile given the standing defects, and in denying motions for post-judgment relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) due to the absence of newly discovered evidence, clear error, or exceptional circumstances. The practical consequence is that the dismissal stands and the case is closed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.