Amy & Vicky v. United States District Court for the Western District
698 F.3d 1151
9th Cir.2012Background
- This is a petition for a writ of mandamus under the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
- A prior panel affirmed Kennedy’s conviction and sentence but vacated the district court’s restitution order and remanded for proximate-causation analysis under Laney.
- On remand, the district court denied restitution to Amy but awarded Vicky $4,545.08 in two installments in 2012.
- Petitioners challenge the district court’s restitution orders under CVRA mandamus standards.
- The court reiterates mandamus relief is available for abuse of discretion or legal error, without Bauman balancing.
- The court declines to overrule Kennedy and holds Fifth Circuit en banc authority is not intervening authority; petition is denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Kennedy be overruled by Fifth Circuit en banc reasoning? | Kennedy controls; proximate causation required for §2259 restitution. | Fifth Circuit en banc decision inconsistent; should be adopted or Kennedy overruled. | Denial of mandamus; Kennedy remains binding. |
| Is the Fifth Circuit en banc decision in In re Unknown controlling? | En banc Fifth Circuit holds no proximate-causation requirement for certain losses; supports petition. | Not intervening authority; not binding on this panel. | Not controlling; Kennedy remains controlling while application of Laney governs causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. United States, 643 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2011) (reiterates proximate-causation requirement for restitution under §2259)
- Laney, 189 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1999) (proximates causation for §2259 restitution based on proximate-result language)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc framework for changing circuit law; intervening authority required)
- Ortega-Mendez v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2006) (intervening authority concept; en banc considerations)
- Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977) (mandamus relief standard—abuse of discretion or legal error; not a Bauman balancing test)