Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

Docket: 4:24-cv-00046-HSG

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Rajesh K. Sinha’s federal claims arising from child support orders. The court held that the district court properly dismissed claims against the State of California and its agencies based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, which bars private suits for damages or injunctive relief against state entities. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims against individually named defendants because Sinha failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim under the standard set forth in *Ashcroft v. Iqbal*. The court declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

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: 2026-07-30

Docket: 2:25-cv-00787-RSM

The ninth-circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of a pro se pretrial detainee’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute and non-compliance with a screening order because the record reflected that the plaintiff timely filed the required amended complaint on May 15, 2025. On remand, the district court is directed to consider the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The court also denied the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.

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: 2026-07-30

Docket: 4:21-cv-00551-JAS

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Devin Andrich’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the failure to release medical records under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The court held that Andrich abandoned any challenge to the district court’s independent, alternative grounds for dismissal—res judicata and failure to state a plausible claim—by failing to raise them in his opening brief. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Andrich’s motions to allow electronic filing and rejected his contentions that the district court violated his constitutional rights. The judgment of the district court remains in 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ameritas Life Insurance Corp., holding that the life insurance policy at issue was void as stranger-originated life insurance (STOLI) under New Jersey law. The court determined that New Jersey law governed the dispute because, under Nebraska choice-of-law principles applicable to life insurance contracts, the insured was domiciled in New Jersey when the application was filed and no state had a more significant relationship to the transaction than New Jersey. The court found that the policy was procured through a scheme involving premium-finance loans and straw purchasers with the intent to benefit third-party investors lacking an insurable interest, rather than for legitimate estate planning purposes. Consequently, the court concluded that Ameritas properly refused to pay the policy benefits and did not breach any contractual duties. The judgment of the district court remains in 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: 2026-07-30

Docket: 2:22-cv-01864-SPL-MTM

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in a prisoner civil rights action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as an equal protection claim. The court held that Hess failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding deliberate indifference, noting that differences of opinion among medical professionals concerning appropriate care do not constitute constitutional violations and that the chosen treatment was not medically unacceptable. Regarding the equal protection claim, the court found no evidence that Hess was treated differently from similarly situated inmates without a rational basis. The court also affirmed the denial of Hess’s discovery motions, finding no prejudice, and dismissed his challenge to the denial of preliminary injunctive relief as moot because the underlying claims had been decided. Consequently, all pending motions were denied and the district court’s judgment was affirmed.

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 Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The tenth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Karen M. Fusilier’s complaint, which alleged crimes committed by state officials and others in family court proceedings. The court held that even though pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings, they must still comply with procedural rules requiring a short and plain statement showing a right to relief and allegations establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court found that Fusilier failed to explain why the district court was wrong in concluding she had not met these requirements, noting her complaint did not specify what each defendant had done or how they violated the law. Consequently, the dismissal stands, and the court granted Fusilier’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

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: 2026-07-30

Docket: 2:23-cv-06288-MWC-MAR

The ninth circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in Esteban Martinez’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez’s motions for default judgment because the operative complaint was screened and dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) before defendants were obligated to respond, rendering default inappropriate under the standard set forth in *Eitel v. McCool*. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to strike Martinez’s post-judgment motion for sanctions, citing the district court’s inherent power to control its docket as recognized in *Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc.* The court declined to address Martinez’s challenge to the dismissal of the operative complaint because it was not specifically and distinctly argued in his opening brief, deeming such issues abandoned under Ninth Circuit precedent. Claims regarding sealing were rejected as meritless, and all pending motions were denied.

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: 2026-07-30

Docket: 2:23-cv-09657-

The ninth circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a suit brought by a plan participant under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The court held that the retirement plan’s representative-action waiver, which prohibited claims brought on a “class, collective, or representative basis,” was unenforceable under the effective-vindication doctrine because it prevented the plaintiff from vindicating her statutory right to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of the plan for plan-wide relief. Under ERISA §§ 409(a) and 502(a)(2), breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims must be brought on behalf of the plan, and the waiver effectively barred this specific form of statutory remedy. Because the arbitration agreement contained an express severability clause stating that unenforceable representative waivers would result in court adjudication rather than arbitration, the court concluded the claims must proceed in federal 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: 2026-07-30

Docket: 2:23-cv-03806-SVW-MRW

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Mei-Miao Kuo’s employment action alleging hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation. The court held that the district court properly dismissed the claims as time-barred because Kuo failed to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the alleged unlawful practices, nor did she allege facts sufficient to establish equitable tolling or equitable estoppel under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The court further determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kuo further leave to amend. As a practical consequence, the judgment of the district court stands, all pending motions are denied, and the case is closed without oral argument.

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: 2026-07-30

Docket: 2:25-cv-03254-JLS-PD

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Alivia Blount’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her employment discrimination action. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard, holding that the district court did not err in denying IFP status because Blount submitted inconsistent information regarding her financial status and failed to explain the discrepancies despite having the opportunity to do so. The practical consequence is that Blount’s appeal is dismissed for failure to pay required fees, and her motion to proceed IFP on appeal is denied as moot.

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