1) Allen v. Ives, No. 18-35001 (2-24-20)(Fletcher w/Christen; dissent by Callahan). Reversing a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, the majority held that a career offender under the old mandatory guidelines may be “actually innocent” under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if his state conviction for sale of marijuana is found not to be a “controlled substance offense” under Taylor, Deschamps, and Mathis. Even though the petitioner got relief under the First Step Act, his petition is not moot because supervised release can be reduced.

Callahan dissented, arguing that the 2255(e) escape hatch is foreclosed by prior precedent.

Congrats to AFPD Elizabeth Daily, FPD Ore (Portland).

The decision is here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/02/24/18-35001.pdf

 

(2) Ross v. Williams, No. 16-16533 (2-24-20)(en banc)(Friedland; dissent by Ikuta). This is a “related back” issue under habeas.  The 9th holds, in essence, that Fed R Civ Pro 10(c) is satisfied when a pro se petitioner sets out specific grounds for relief in an attached court decision. The amended and original petitions share a common core of operative set of facts.

The dissent argues that the standard is unworkable broad, too complex, inconsistent with habeas pleadings, AEDPA’s statute of limitations, and even Supreme Court precedent.

Congrats to AFPD Jon Kirshbaum, Nev FPD (Las Vegas). Amicus support provided by David Porter and Gabriel Chin, NACDL and Aoki Center for Critical Race and Nation Studies. 

The decision is here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/02/24/16-16533.pdf