9th Circuit reinstates District Court Dismissal of Valley Fever Claims Brought By Inmates Against the Private Contractor of a Federal Prison.

The consolidated cases of Aluya, Hammond, and Sutton vs. MTC can be downloaded here.  In the second inmates' valley-fever related decision, the 9th Circuit overruled the lower court's dismissal of the claims of Ian Wallach's clients, acknowledging the validity of these claims.  The decision can be read herehere..

Article By Ian Wallach Discussing Inmate's Rights and How To Frame A FTCA Complaint Published On Website For California Lawyer (A Division Of The Daily Journal)

The article -- Federal Tort Claims & The Issue Of Sovereign Immunity, California Lawyer Website, June 22, 2016 can be read here:  http://www.callawyer.com/2016/06/ftca-and-the-limits-of-sovereign-immunity/.

The article discusses the 9th Circuit' recent May 20, 2016 Opinion in Edison v. United States, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2016), 2016 WL 2946347 (9th Cir.), where the Court enumerated the limits on the application of the "independent contractor" exception in cases where the USA has hired subcontractors to perform governmental duties but retained some responsibilities.  

Sotomayor Dissent today in Utah v. Strieff

I am reposting a post from a separate listeserve (NACDL — posted by Jeffrey M. Gamso, Assistant Cuyahoga County Public Defender (Cleveland, Ohio), related to Utah v. Strieff.  The entire decision can be read here:  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf

Sotomayor's analysis is thoughtful and compelling.  I would only add that such stops also greatly contribute to the societal distrust that our less-enfranchised communities have for law enforcement.

SCOTUS today.  

The opinion in Utah v. Strieff (by Thomas, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, & Alito) reversed the Utah Supreme Court which granted suppression (reversing the trial court) of drugs and paraphernalia following a flagrantly unconstitutional stop.  This would just be another ho hum with dissents (Sotomayor, joined in part by Ginsburg; Kagan joined in whole by Ginsburg), except for the part that Sotomayor wrote only for herself.

Here's the guts of it (long to put in this despite my deleting all citations, but trust me when I say you should read it all):

Writing only for myself, and drawing on my professional experiences, I would add that unlawful "stops" have severe consequences much greater than the inconvenience suggested by the name. This Court has given officers an array of instruments to probe and examine you. When we condone officers' use of these devices without adequate cause, we give them reason to target pedestrians in an arbitrary manner. We also risk treating members of our communities as second-class citizens.

Although many Americans have been stopped for speeding or jaywalking, few may realize how degrading a stop can be when the officer is looking for more. This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants-so long as he can point to a pretextual justification after the fact. That justification must provide specific reasons why the officer suspected you were breaking the law, but it may factor in your ethnicity, where you live, what you were wearing, and how you behaved. The officer does not even need to know which law you might have broken so long as he can later point to any possible infraction-even one that is minor, unrelated, or ambiguous.

The indignity of the stop is not limited to an officer telling you that you look like a criminal. The officer may next ask for your "consent" to inspect your bag or purse without telling you that you can decline. Regardless of your answer, he may order you to stand "helpless, perhaps facing a wall with [your] hands raised." If the officer thinks you might be dangerous, he may then "frisk" you for weapons. This involves more than just a pat down. As onlookers pass by, the officer may "'feel with sensitive fingers every portion of [your] body. A thorough search [may] be made of [your] arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet.'"

The officer's control over you does not end with the stop. If the officer chooses, he may handcuff you and take you to jail for doing nothing more than speeding, jaywalking, or "driving [your] pickup truck . . . with [your] 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter . . . without [your] seatbelt fastened." At the jail, he can fingerprint you, swab DNA from the inside of your mouth, and force you to "shower with a delousing agent" while you "lift [your] tongue, hold out [your] arms, turn around, and lift [your] genitals." Even if you are innocent, you will now join the 65 million Americans with an arrest record and experience the "civil death" of discrimination by employers, landlords, and whoever else conducts a background check. And, of course, if you fail to pay bail or appear for court, a judge will issue a warrant to render you "arrestable on sight" in the future.

This case involves a suspicionless stop, one in which the officer initiated this chain of events without justification. As the Justice Department notes, many innocent people are subjected to the humiliations of these unconstitutional searches. The white defendant in this case shows that anyone's dignity can be violated in this manner. But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. For generations, black and brown parents have given their children "the talk"-instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger-all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

We must not pretend that the countless people who areroutinely targeted by police are "isolated." They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawfulpolice stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.

* * * 

I dissent. 

Monday, May 23, 2016.  Los Angeles Daily Journal covers Edison v. USA decision allowing claims by inmates against USA alleging valley fever infections resulting from incarceration at Taft to proceed  (click here for article)

Friday, May 20, 2016.  9TH CIRCUIT DECISION RELATED TO INMATES' RIGHT TO SUE USA FOR CLAIMS ARISING FROM VALLEY FEVER INFECTIONS AT TAFT COVERED BY ASSOCIATED PRESS AND OTHER AGENCIES.
Articles included:

• SF Gate, May 20, 2016, "Appeals court reinstates Valley Fever suits against US" (Ian Wallach quoted in article) (click here for article)
• Courthouse News Service, May 23, 2016, "U.S.A. Is Liable for Valley Fever in Prison" (Ian Wallach quoted in article) (click here for article)
• San Francisco Chronicle, May 20, 2016, "Appeals court reinstates Valley Fever suits against US" (Ian Wallach quoted in article) (click here for article)

Friday, May 20, 2016.  9TH CIRCUIT REVERSES WRONGFUL DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS IN IAN WALLACH'S VALLEY FEVER CASE.

Mr. Wallach represents several present and former inmates in actions before the Eastern District of California alleging that they acquired valley fever as a result of their incarceration at the Taft facility.  The lower court dismissed the USA from the actions on the grounds of sovereign immunity.  Mr. Wallach appealed, and argued the matter before the 9th Cir. on February 8, 2016 (which can be seen here).  On May 23, in the consolidated cases of People v. Edison & People v. Nuwintore, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously adopted all three arguments by the Plaintiffs and reinstated their causes of action.  The decision can be read here.

Monday, May 15, 2016.  "NOT GUILTY" on four counts, hang on remaining.  Alhrambra Courthouse.
The People alleged that the client, who was married to a government official, engaged in acts of domestic violence, child endangernment, and destruction of property.  Following a six day trial, the jury returned verdicts of "Not Guilty" on all counts but for one vandalism count -- where the jury was deadlocked

Gov. Brown To Seek November Ballot Initiative To Relax Mandatory Prison Sentences

Gov. Jerry Brown, who is responsible for the three-strikes system in California, and who has since referred to it as “an abysmal failure” (which it is), is finally seeking to undue it and to return discretion to the judges who are familiar with the facts and mitigating circumstances of each matter.  A LA Times article is here: 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-jerry-brown-sentencing-reform-ballot-20160127-story.html