Terry J. Hatter jr

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition challenging the California Governor's reversal of a parole board decision finding an inmate suitable for release. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings after de novo review, granting relief on grounds that the Governor's unsuitability determination lacked 'some evidence' of current dangerousness under the standard from Superintendent v. Hill, as informed by California law requiring a rational nexus between the commitment offense and ongoing risk. The court rejected arguments that this improperly applied state law or that Lawrence v. California was inapplicable, and held that reinstatement of the board's decision was the appropriate remedy rather than remand, given the Governor's limited review authority. Other claims were denied, including one as untimely. The board was ordered to calculate a release date, with potential release if the date had passed.

criminal lawprocedure

Martinez v. Gonzales involves a habeas corpus petition filed by a longtime lawful permanent resident from Ecuador who had been detained by ICE for over four years while removal proceedings were pending based on prior criminal convictions. The petitioner challenged the legality of his prolonged detention without a bond hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court, after de novo review, adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, finding that the detention was governed by statutes requiring individualized hearings and that indefinite or unreasonably prolonged detention raised due process concerns under precedents like Zadvydas v. Davis. As a result, the court ordered that the petitioner receive a hearing before an immigration judge to determine if continued detention was justified, with release on reasonable conditions unless the government met its evidentiary burden.

immigrationcivil rights

The case involved copyright owner Robert Hendrickson suing Amazon.com for direct and vicarious copyright infringement after a third-party seller listed an unauthorized DVD of his unreleased film Manson for sale on Amazon's website. Hendrickson had previously notified Amazon that all Manson DVDs infringed his rights, purchased the item through the platform, and claimed Amazon facilitated the infringing sale. The court granted Amazon's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Amazon did not directly sell the DVD and qualified for the DMCA safe harbor defense against vicarious liability. The decision rested on findings that Amazon functioned only as an internet service provider without control over third-party sales, the initial notice did not adequately cover later listings under DMCA requirements, and Amazon lacked actual knowledge or the ability to prevent the specific infringing transaction.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a state prisoner who, after a 1983 rape conviction requiring lifetime sex offender registration, was convicted in 1999 of failing to register and sentenced to 25 years to life under California's Three Strikes law. He filed a federal habeas petition claiming due process violations because the prosecution did not prove his knowledge of the registration duty and the jury was instructed that knowledge was unnecessary, that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment as grossly disproportionate, and that a jury instruction denied him a fair trial. The magistrate judge recommended denying the petition with prejudice after reviewing the claims under AEDPA standards, finding that the state courts' decisions were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and that evidence showed the petitioner had received actual notice of his registration obligations on multiple occasions. The district judge accepted the report and recommendation in full, resulting in dismissal of the petition.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involved multiple habeas corpus petitions filed by aliens facing deportation orders who were being held indefinitely by the INS while awaiting repatriation to their home countries. The petitioners argued that their ongoing detention violated due process. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and that exhaustion of administrative remedies was futile because INS review procedures were inadequate and failed to provide meaningful, individualized assessments. It further held that the petitioners, as aliens who had entered the United States, were entitled to substantive due process protections against indefinite detention, requiring case-by-case review by magistrate judges to determine if release or supervised release was warranted. The opinion emphasized that any conditions of release must be the minimum necessary to ensure availability for deportation and that violations could be addressed through criminal prosecution rather than continued detention.

immigrationcivil rights

The case involves a plaintiff seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of supplemental security income benefits, based on claims of disability from hypertension, chest pain, and related symptoms since 1991. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, affirming the Commissioner's decision and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The core reasoning centered on the ALJ's finding at step four that the plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work as a market vendor, even though the work occurred in Vietnam more than fifteen years earlier, because the skills remained applicable, the job type existed in modified form in the U.S., and the 15-year guideline did not mandate exclusion of such remote experience.

federal powerhealthcare

The case involves a federal prisoner who filed a Bivens action against prison officials and federal institutions after breaking his leg in a workplace accident at USP Lompoc due to a defective cart and floor, followed by alleged inadequate medical care including misdiagnosis and delayed treatment, plus a retaliatory transfer to another facility. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs claim and the Fifth Amendment retaliatory transfer claim, while granting dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment personal security claim. It further dismissed the action against the institutional defendants (DOJ, BOP, and USP Lompoc) for lack of proper service and consent to suit. The core reasoning addressed the scope of 18 U.S.C. Section 4126 as not barring constitutional Bivens claims and the procedural bars to suing unserved federal entities.

civil rightscriminal law

The case involved a habeas corpus petition by an immigrant who entered the U.S. in 1981, applied for legalization under the 1986 amnesty provisions, and traveled to Brazil in 1991 without advance parole to care for her ill mother, resulting in her being placed in exclusion proceedings upon return due to the lack of valid entry documents. The district court granted the petition, vacated the exclusion order, and directed the INS to restore the petitioner's prior status without regard to her trip. The core reasoning was that Congress did not authorize the INS regulation requiring advance parole for such applicants, as the statute's plain language and legislative history established that brief, non-meaningful absences do not interrupt continuous residence for legalization purposes, making the regulation invalid under Chevron analysis. The court applied traditional tools of statutory construction and found the INS interpretation impermissible.

immigrationfederal power

The case involved Volker Keith Meinhold, a Navy sailor with an exemplary record, who was discharged in 1992 solely for announcing on television that he was gay, rather than for any prohibited conduct. Meinhold sued the Department of Defense, challenging the policy that banned gays and lesbians from the military based on status alone. The court granted summary judgment to Meinhold, permanently enjoining the DoD from discharging or denying enlistment to individuals based on sexual orientation absent conduct that interferes with the military mission, and rescinded Meinhold's discharge. The core reasoning was that the policy lacked a rational basis under equal protection, as the factual record was insufficient to show it advanced goals like discipline or morale, with multiple military-commissioned studies finding no empirical support for claims of adverse effects and noting parallels to past discriminatory practices.

civil rightsfederal power

In this case, musician David Pancost Jackson, Jr. sued Hoyt Axton in 1992, claiming co-authorship of the 1970 hit song "Joy to the World" and seeking an ownership interest, after Axton had registered the copyright in his name alone, sold his interests to Rondor International in 1991, and Jackson had never previously asserted any claim. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that laches barred the claim due to Jackson's inexcusable 22-year delay, which created a presumption of prejudice through changed circumstances (including the sale of the song), faded memories, and stale evidence, and which Axton had reasonably relied upon in conducting his business affairs.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Volker Meinhold, a highly regarded Navy sonar analyst and instructor with twelve years of service, who was discharged shortly after publicly stating on television that he was gay. Meinhold sued the Department of Defense and Navy, seeking a preliminary injunction for immediate reinstatement on the grounds that the discharge violated administrative procedures and constitutional protections. The court granted the injunction, ordering reinstatement, after finding that Meinhold was likely to succeed on the merits because the Navy had failed to follow its own procedural rules in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, had assured Meinhold he would not be discharged based on orientation alone, and had applied regulations that constituted a bill of attainder and lacked a rational basis under equal protection. The court also determined that Meinhold faced irreparable injury from loss of his specialized skills while the Navy would suffer no hardship from his return.

civil rightsprocedure

The case Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Fox Software, Inc. concerned the validity of Ashton-Tate's copyrights in its dBase line of computer software programs in the context of a lawsuit against Fox Software. Fox moved for summary judgment on the ground that Ashton-Tate had engaged in inequitable conduct by repeatedly failing to disclose to the Copyright Office that dBase was derived from the public domain program JPLDIS and that dBase III was derived from dBase II, which the court initially found was done knowingly and with intent to deceive, resulting in invalid copyrights and dismissal of Ashton-Tate's claims. On reconsideration, the court rescinded its prior order and denied Fox's motion for summary judgment.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved Eastport Associates, a bankrupt developer, seeking declaratory relief to prevent the expiration of its zoning and tentative subdivision map approvals for a 500-unit project on land in the Santa Monica Mountains. These approvals, granted by the City of Los Angeles, had lapsed after Eastport failed to meet a condition requiring a secondary access road over County-owned land, which the County refused to sell despite offers. Following a 1988 amendment to the California Subdivision Map Act sponsored by Eastport, the bankruptcy court granted Eastport summary judgment, holding that the amendment applied retroactively to create a development moratorium that extended the entitlements until June 1989 plus litigation time. The district court affirmed, reasoning that the statutory text, including its provision for pending litigation, demonstrated legislative intent for retroactive effect and that the Map Act preempted inconsistent local rules.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether a defendant corporation properly maintained leased premises in California, with the plaintiff filing suit in state court. The defendant received a copy of the complaint during a settlement meeting but was formally served by mail weeks later, then removed the case to federal court 61 days after receiving the complaint. The court addressed the timeliness of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), which requires filing notice within thirty days after receipt of the initial pleading through service or otherwise. Following the view that the removal clock starts upon receipt of a sufficient pleading and construing removal statutes strictly against removal, the court held that the defendant's actual notice from the complaint made the removal untimely. It therefore ordered the action remanded to state court.

procedure

The case involved current and former employees of Farmers Group, Inc. who continued working past age 65 and were excluded from receiving profit-sharing plan contributions, forfeiture allocations, and pension benefit accruals under the company's plans. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that these exclusions violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The core reasoning was that the plan provisions, adopted without justification based on age-related cost factors, constituted a subterfuge to evade ADEA purposes, and that denying further accruals and contributions to older workers breached ERISA's rules on plan participation and nonforfeiture of benefits. The court also found the ADEA violation to be willful.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved three consolidated civil forfeiture actions under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) seeking to seize real property alleged to have been purchased with proceeds from drug sales. The property owners moved to dismiss, arguing that the seizure warrants violated the Fourth Amendment because they were issued by a court clerk based solely on the government's complaint without a prior judicial finding of probable cause. The court held that the Fourth Amendment applies to such forfeiture proceedings due to their punitive nature and requires that a neutral judicial officer determine probable cause before issuing an in rem warrant for real property. The warrants here were invalid because they were issued by a clerk without adequate probable cause review and on the basis of conclusory allegations in the complaint. Accordingly, the court quashed the warrants.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a shippers' agent, Alliance Shippers, suing railroad Southern Pacific for allegedly providing more favorable rates, rebates, and services to other similarly situated shippers after the ICC exempted TOFC rail service from regulation under the Staggers Act. Alliance claimed violations of federal non-discrimination rules, antitrust laws, and various state laws. The court granted Southern Pacific's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice. It reasoned that the ICC exemption removed the service from the Interstate Commerce Act's anti-discrimination provisions, leaving only antitrust laws applicable, but the undisputed facts showed no antitrust violation; state claims were also preempted by federal deregulation of the service.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act by Jerry Chidester, who was seriously injured in 1978 after diving into a pool of water formed by Orange County Dam No. 27 in the Cleveland National Forest. The court found that the United States was not liable for the injuries. The reasoning was that Chidester was a recreational user of the land who had not paid consideration or been expressly invited, thus falling under California's recreational use immunity statute (Civ. Code § 846), and that the government, as a lessor under a special use permit to Orange County, had no duty regarding dangerous conditions that arose after the permit was granted.

torts & liabilitypropertyfederal power

This case arose from Gulf Oil Corporation's decision to exit the Southern California gasoline market by selling its service stations to Thrifty Oil Company, prompting claims by independent station operators that the transaction violated their franchise rights under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), including rights to first refusal and proper notice. The plaintiffs, some operating under branded or unbranded supply agreements with Gulf, alleged fraud, unfair competition, and related state-law violations, along with a federal claim that Gulf failed to comply with PMPA obligations before the sale. The court decided to remand the entire action to state court, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Thrifty was not the plaintiffs' franchisor under the PMPA and no evidence supported a conspiracy to circumvent the Act. The core reasoning was that the federal claims against Gulf could not be severed from the nonremovable state claims against Thrifty, pendent-party jurisdiction was unavailable in the Ninth Circuit, and the defendants' second removal petition did not establish a timely or independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a mother and her five young children who were stopped by police for a traffic violation, detained without explanation or arrest, and locked in an adult detention cell for a period despite posing no threat and despite available alternative facilities. The court concluded that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' constitutional due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by confining the minor children in such conditions without justification. The reasoning centered on the children's liberty interests outweighing any administrative burdens, the availability of better facilities, and the city's liability due to inadequate training or supervision amounting to deliberate indifference, as evidenced by the egregious incident and failure to follow state law requirements for detaining children.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure