Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 5:24-cv-01803)

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of Paul Lisenby’s retaliation claim under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). The court held that to constitute protected conduct under the “other efforts” prong of the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision, a plaintiff must hold an objectively reasonable belief that their employer is violating or will violate the FCA by submitting false claims for payment to the federal government. While the court determined that FCA retaliation claims are not subject to the heightened particularity pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), it found Lisenby’s Amended Complaint failed to allege facts connecting his concerns about FDA regulatory violations and patient safety risks to a belief that Olympus was committing fraud against the government. Consequently, Lisenby did not engage in protected activity, and the dismissal 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

The ninth-circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of an appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The court applied the substantial evidence standard, upholding the agency’s determinations because the evidence did not compel a contrary conclusion. Specifically, the court found that the petitioner’s experiences, including an attempted robbery, school discrimination, and extreme poverty, did not rise to the level of past persecution or establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his Quiché ethnicity or proposed particular social group. Additionally, the court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an individualized risk of persecution despite membership in a disfavored group. Because the petitioner failed to meet the lower standard for asylum, he could not satisfy the higher “clear probability” standard required for withholding of removal.

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 Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The sixth circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the defendant officers failed to concede the plaintiff’s version of the facts as required for interlocutory review of a qualified immunity denial. The court applied the standard that appellate jurisdiction over qualified immunity denials is limited to purely legal questions and does not extend to disputes over material facts, unless the defendants explicitly concede the plaintiff’s factual assertions or the record evidence blatantly contradicts those assertions. The court found that although the officers purported to accept the record, their briefing relied on contested factual disputes regarding whether the plaintiff actively resisted during two separate uses of force. Furthermore, the video evidence did not blatantly contradict the district court’s determination that genuine issues of material fact existed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, allowing the plaintiff’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to proceed in the district court.

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: 4:25-cv-00323-KAW

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Linda Furst Mayne’s complaint against her former attorneys. Although the court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar jurisdiction because Mayne alleged a legal injury caused by an adverse party rather than a state court judgment, it affirmed the dismissal on the alternative ground that the claims were time-barred. The court determined that the gravamen of the complaint was professional negligence (legal malpractice) arising from services rendered in July 2019, which is subject to Arizona’s two-year statute of limitations under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542. Because Mayne filed her complaint in January 2025, more than two years after the alleged wrongful acts, the claims were barred and amendment would be futile.

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: 2:20-cv-08985-FWS-DFM

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Charles Everett’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), reviewing the denial for abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court properly concluded Everett’s claims under Rules 60(b)(2) and (3) were untimely, as the one-year deadline in Rule 60(c)(1) expired more than two years prior to his filing and was not tolled during the pendency of his appeal. The court further held that relief under Rule 60(b)(5) was properly denied because the Supreme Court’s decision in *SEC v. Jarkesy* applies only to administrative proceedings before SEC judges, not to civil enforcement actions litigated in federal district courts where summary judgment does not violate Seventh Amendment jury trial rights. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief, noting that Everett failed to identify any extraordinary circumstances warranting relief from a judgment entered more than two years earlier and that the motion could not serve as a substitute for appeal on the merits. The practical consequence is that the underlying summary judgment against Everett remains in full force and effect.

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-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.