UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan MORALES-ISABARRAS, AKA Juan Isabanas, AKA Juan Morales, AKA Juan I. Morales, AKA Juan Isaras Morales, AKA Juan Isares Morales, AKA Juan Morales-Isabanas, AKA Manuel Moreles, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10005
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
March 13, 2014
Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 2013.
A factfinder could reasonably conclude from the above that Los Angeles County has a policy of investigating only those complaints of misidentification that have been phrased in very precise, particular terms. Applying the Disputed Warrant Verification Form procedures only when a detainee specifically complains that he is not the subject of the warrant and ignoring the other, more common complaints may well be deliberately indifferent to a detainee‘s constitutional rights. After all, a lay person has no means of knowing that, to get an officer‘s or county official‘s attention, he must state, in very specific terms, that he is not the true subject of the warrant; instead, he may reasonably attempt to explain his predicament by indicating that the police have mistaken him for another person or that he is not the person the police are seeking. It is entirely obvious that refusing to investigate any but the most precise misidentification complaints will lead to the unconstitutional detention of innocent individuals. See Lee, 250 F.3d at 682 (“[D]eliberate indifference to a person‘s constitutional rights occurs when the need for more or different action, ‘is so obvious, and the inadequacy [of the current procedure] so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers . . . can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.‘” (second alteration in original) (quoting Oviatt, 954 F.2d at 1477-78)).
If the factfinder were to conclude that Los Angeles County has a policy of investigating only a narrow set of very precisely-worded complaints, the factfinder could also reasonably conclude that this policy was the moving force behind the deprivation of Rivera‘s rights. In order to be the “moving force” behind a plaintiff‘s injury, the “‘identified deficiency’ in the County‘s policies [must be] ‘closely related to the ultimate injury.‘” Gibson v. Cnty. of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1196 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 391, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989)). Here, the statements Rivera made to the Los Angeles County officials are remarkably similar to Agent Becerra‘s examples of complaints that would be considered distinct from general misidentification claims. A factfinder could reasonably determine that Rivera‘s complaints were therefore ignored because of a municipal policy to not investigate such complaints.
IV.
For the above reasons, I would hold that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Rivera‘s due process rights were violated and whether Los Angeles County may be held liable for the violation. I would therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the district court‘s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
Susan B. Gray (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Melinda Haag, United States Attorney; Barbara J. Valliere, Chief, Appellate Division, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: DOROTHY W. NELSON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR., and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
In this appeal, Juan Morales-Isabarras challenges the district court‘s jurisdiction
I
Morales, a resident of Mexico, had a lengthy history of illegal entries into the United States and deportations back to Mexico. Before the illegal reentry at issue, he was deported from the United States on December 15, 1999, February 24, 2001, September 4, 2001, September 26, 2001, October 2, 2001, and May 18, 2003.
On November 6, 2003, Morales again reentered the United States illegally, and was indicted in the Northern District of California on November 20, 2003, on one count of illegal reentry in violation of
After his deportation, Morales again reentered the United States. He was arrested for illegal reentry on August 3, 2006 and indicted in the Southern District of California. The 2006 illegal reentry not only violated
On April 6, 2007, Morales (who had remained in federal custody since his arrest) finally pleaded guilty to a violation of
Morales again illegally reentered the United States at some unknown time. On September 12, 2012, he was arrested in the District of Arizona and charged with “improper entry” under
Approximately two weeks later, on September 25, 2012, the arrest warrant for Morales‘s 2003 supervised release violation was executed, and Morales was transferred from the District of Arizona to the Northern District of California to answer these charges.
On November 5, 2012, Morales filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release. Morales argued that his term of supervised release for the 2003 conviction had expired, and the court could not extend its jurisdiction to revoke the
(i) Delayed Revocation.----The power of the court to revoke a term of supervised release for violation of a condition of supervised release, and to order the defendant to serve a term of imprisonment and, subject to the limitations in subsection (h), a further term of supervised release, extends beyond the expiration of the term of supervised release for any period reasonably necessary for the adjudication of matters arising before its expiration if, before its expiration, a warrant or summons has been issued on the basis of an allegation of such a violation.
The district court denied the motion at a hearing on November 19, 2012. After finding that Morales had violated conditions of his supervised release by illegally reentering the United States in 2006, the court revoked his supervised release. On December 17, 2012, the court sentenced Morales to 18 months imprisonment and 18 months of supervised release. Morales timely appealed, arguing only that the district court‘s revocation of his supervised release exceeded its jurisdiction under
II
We review de novo whether the district court had jurisdiction to revoke a term of supervised release. United States v. Ignacio Juarez, 601 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.2010).
Under
Courts have generally taken a practical approach to the determination of what delays are “reasonably necessary” for purposes of
In applying this practical approach, we have held that “the ‘reasonably necessary’ period of time referenced by
III
We now apply these principles to the facts of this case. There is no dispute that the warrant for the 2003 supervised release violation issued before the three-year term of supervised release had expired. Morales‘s term of supervised release commenced on May 18, 2005, when he was deported to Mexico. Absent tolling, the term would have expired on May 18, 2008. The district court issued a warrant for Morales‘s arrest on the 2003 supervised release violation on August 31, 2006, and so the warrant was timely.
We next consider whether “the delay between the end of the term of supervised release and the district court‘s revocation order is ‘reasonably necessary for the adjudication of matters arising before [the term‘s] expiration.‘” Garrett, 253 F.3d at 446 (quoting
We now turn to the question whether the delay from May 2009 (the date the supervised release term expired) until November or December 2012 (the date when the court adjudicated Morales‘s 2003 supervised release violation) was “reasonably necessary” for the adjudication of the matter at issue, namely, whether the August 2006 illegal reentry constituted a violation of the 2003 supervised release order. Because the 2003 supervised release violation occurred a little more than one year into the three-year term of supervised release, we also take into account the time that passed after the violation occurred. Logically, if the supervised release violation could reasonably have been adjudicated before the expiration of the term of supervised release in May 2009, it would not have been reasonably necessary to adjudicate the violation after the expiration of that term. See Garrett, 253 F.3d at 448-49 (discussing United States v. Dworkin, 70 F.Supp.2d 214 (E.D.N.Y.1999), and that case‘s consideration of time prior to the expiration of the supervised release period); see also United States v. Crisler, 501 F.3d 1151, 1152 (10th Cir.2007) (concluding it was not “reasonably necessary” to delay revocation of probation under a statutory provision substantially identical to
We first consider the period from August 2006, when the government became aware that Morales had violated the conditions of his 2003 release, until July 2008, when Morales was deported to Mexico. We conclude that the delays during this period were reasonably necessary. The adjudication of the 2006 illegal reentry charge was “plainly relevant” to the district court‘s adjudication of the violation of the 2003 supervised release conditions because the 2003 supervised release violation was based on that illegal reentry. Id. at 117. Therefore, it was “reasonably necessary” to delay proceedings on the 2003 supervised release violation during this period. Id. Moreover, the delay while Morales was in federal custody for the sentence relating to the 2006 illegal reentry was reasonably necessary because requiring the government to transfer Morales to the Northern District of California where the violation was adjudicated would be burdensome. See Madden, 515 F.3d at 606 (concluding portion of delay where defendant was held in custody in another federal district on charges unrelated to supervised release violation was “reasonably necessary“); see also
The delays during the period after Morales was deported to Mexico on July 15, 2008, until he was arrested in September 2012 for illegal reentry were also reasonably necessary. Morales was not in the jurisdiction of the United States for at least some of this period. Locating Morales in a foreign jurisdiction, executing the warrant, and possibly commencing extradition proceedings to bring him to the United States would have been at least as burdensome as executing a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum when a defendant is in state custody. Accordingly, postponing execution of a warrant in this circumstance is “reasonably necessary” for purposes of
Finally, the period of delay between Morales‘s September 2012 arrest and the final revocation hearing and sentencing in November and December 2012 was reasonably necessary in light of the time necessary to complete federal proceedings in the District of Arizona, transfer Morales to the Northern District of California, and allow the parties to brief and adjudicate Morales‘s motion to dismiss. See Garrett, 253 F.3d at 450 (concluding several weeks of delay between execution of violation warrant and revocation hearing was “reasonably necessary” for the adjudication of matters arising prior to the expiration of [the defendant‘s] supervised release“).
Relying on United States v. Hill, 719 F.2d 1402 (9th Cir.1983), Morales argues that a delay is reasonably necessary only if caused by the defendant‘s own conduct. We reject this argument. Hill interpreted two now-repealed statutes,
Accordingly, we conclude that the period from the date his supervised release term ended in May 2009, until the date of his final revocation hearing and sentencing was “reasonably necessary” for the adjudication of the violation of his 2003 supervised release conditions.3 Therefore, the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate Morales‘s 2003 supervised release violations.
AFFIRMED.