| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20-50361
|
Amended Opinion: U.S. v. Wright
Trial court's improper consideration of inapplicable sentencing policy statement during compassionate release analysis was harmless because the court alternatively denied the motion on other appropriate grounds. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
R. Bennett | Aug. 30, 2022 |
|
20-50361
|
U.S. v. Wright
Trial court's improper consideration of inapplicable sentencing policy statement during compassionate release analysis was harmless because the court alternatively denied the motion on other appropriate grounds. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
R. Bennett | Aug. 1, 2022 |
|
19-17449
|
Prison Legal News v. Ryan, et al.
Arizona Department of Corrections Order prohibiting mail with sexually explicit material did not violate First Amendment because it was connected to legitimate penal interests and there were no viable alternatives. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
E. Miller | Jul. 11, 2022 |
|
19-16786
|
Fierro v. Smith
Jury should not have been given deference instruction when there was a dispute whether denial of protective custody was necessary, justified, and not exaggerated response to security needs. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
M. Friedland | Jul. 5, 2022 |
|
S104665
|
People v. Poore
Death row inmates' constitutional rights were not violated by imposing a stun belt and restraint chair during trial because there was a manifest need based on inmates' extensive violent history. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
C. Corrigan | Jun. 28, 2022 |
|
A164317
|
In re Emanuel O. Cuenca
Petitioner's equal protection claim, based on the state offering state prison inmates, but not county inmates, rehabilitation program credits, failed because the law satisfied rational basis review. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
J. Streeter | Jun. 27, 2022 |
|
21-15089
|
Al Saud v. Days
Denying prisoner's request to be housed only with other Muslims was the least restrictive means of avoiding equal protection liability that comes with classifying prisoners based on religious beliefs. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
M. Smith | Jun. 8, 2022 |
|
22-15821
|
Atwood v. Shinn
Prisoner is not entitled to preliminary relief and stay of execution absent sufficient evidence to prove substantial risk of severe pain to be caused by accommodated execution method. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
P. Curiam (9th Cir.) | Jun. 7, 2022 |
|
E072797
|
In re Dohner
Inmate's contentions in habeas that various constitutional rights were violated by prison's prohibition on possessing a personal television failed on the merits. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
M. Raphael | Jun. 6, 2022 |
|
20-17519
|
Saddozai v. Davis
District court erred in dismissing inmate's complaint where the inmate had exhausted his administrative remedies by the time he filed his operative third amended complaint. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
M. Smith | May 24, 2022 |
|
20-15586
|
Stewart v. Aranas
Prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity where their protracted "wait and see" treatment amounted to deliberate indifference and clearly violated prisoner's constitutional rights. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
E. Siler | May 5, 2022 |
|
18-55831
|
Russell v. Lumitap
Prison nurse was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established case law put her on notice that she could violate plaintiff's constitutional rights while following the doctor's instructions. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
A. Kleinfeld | Apr. 14, 2022 |
|
19-17093
|
Ray v. Lara
A prisoner must show a nexus between their claim and the alleged danger to qualify for the imminent danger exception to the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
C. Lucero | Apr. 12, 2022 |
|
21-5592
|
Ramirez v. Collier
Texas failed to show that a categorical ban on audible prayer in the execution chamber was not the least restrictive means of furthering the state's compelling interest in preventing disruptions in the chamber. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
J. Roberts | Mar. 25, 2022 |
|
20-35579
|
Balla v. State of Idaho
Conflicting testimony regarding medical treatment at Idaho state prison facility was not sufficient to show deliberate indifference for an alleged Eighth Amendment violation. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
M. Smith | Mar. 23, 2022 |
|
20-55568
|
Ahlman v. Barnes
A stay of a preliminary injunction under the Prison Litigation Reform Act does not toll the 90-day automatic expiration. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
R. Nelson | Dec. 13, 2021 |
|
19-15691
|
Fordley v. Lizarraga
A prison's failure to respond to an inmate's grievance rendered the administrative appeals process "unavailable" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
M. Christen | Nov. 11, 2021 |
|
C090663
|
Hulbert v. Cross
Trial court did not understand nature of its discretion to safeguard indigent inmate's right of access to courts. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
A. Hoch | Jun. 15, 2021 |
|
19-35119
|
Bean v. Matteucci
District court erred in denying petitioner's habeas petition based on 'Younger v. Harris' abstention grounds because irreparable harm exception applied. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
R. Paez | Jan. 21, 2021 |
|
08-99024
|
Hooper v. Shinn
Arizona Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established law in concluding that defendant failed to show that disclosure of witness benefits violated defendant's due process rights. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
M. Bennett | Jan. 11, 2021 |
|
19-70036
|
Christian v. Thomas
United States Supreme Court decision in 'McCoy v. Louisiana' has not been made to apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
C. Bea | Dec. 15, 2020 |
|
A160122
|
In re Von Staich
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation acted with deliberate indifference to the risk of petitioner contracting COVID-19 by failing to implement measures to permit physical distancing between inmates. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
J. Kline | Oct. 22, 2020 |
|
19-70365
|
Chades v. Hill
Petitioner's application for leave to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(b)(1) was denied. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
J. Bybee | Oct. 1, 2020 |
|
C087151
|
In re Hampton
Where appellate counsel fails to raise significant and obvious issue, failure will generally be considered deficient performance. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
A. Hoch | May 4, 2020 |
|
17-15603
|
May v. Ryan
Petitioner's lawyer did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object to resumption of jury deliberations after trial court declared mistrial. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
M. Friedland | Mar. 30, 2020 |
|
19-55213
|
Milam v. Harrington
District court erred by refusing to consider petitioner's mental impairment as cause of untimely filing of habeas petition simply because he was represented by counsel. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
A. Hurwitz | Mar. 26, 2020 |
|
16-55083
|
Harris v. Harris
Dismissals for refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, failure to serve, and quasi-judicial immunity are not grounds giving rise to strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
J. Nguyen | Aug. 22, 2019 |
|
F075680
|
In re Rigsby
A prisoner possesses items in his cell when he has knowledge of the items and the items are located in an area accessible to all prisoners residing in that cell. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
R. Peña | Aug. 21, 2019 |
|
16-56845
|
Valdez v. Montgomery
Supreme Court 60-day 'benchmark' excludes equitable tolling for habeas petitioner who could not show 'good cause' for waiting year between filing state habeas petitions. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
R. Gould | Mar. 15, 2019 |
|
16-99007
|
Hurles v. Ryan
Intervening Supreme Court authority that ineffective assistance of appellate counsel cannot excuse procedural default of habeas claim renders petitioner's claim unviable. |
Prisoners' Rights |
|
P. Curiam (9th Cir.) | Feb. 4, 2019 |