Source: https://edca.typepad.com/eastern_district_of_calif/judge-shubb/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:27:25+00:00

Document:
Eastern District of California Blog: Judge Shubb, William B.
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a right-to-work lawsuit that sought to upend the way state government’s largest union collects dues from employees who do not want to fund political activities.
Judge William Shubb’s decision allows SEIU Local 1000 to continue registering employees with an “opt-out” format that requires them to explicitly withdraw from the union’s political campaigns if they oppose it.
[Amended/Updated 2/20/16]: In this United States v. Lattanaphom, No. 2:99-0433-WBS Memorandum and Order, Judge Shubb today granted the defendants' motion to dismiss several 924(c) gun counts based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Johnson held that the portion of the definition of crime of violence in the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause is void as unconstitutionally vague.
Judge Shubb applies the Johnson decision to the more common gun charge, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He reasons that while the Ninth Circuit has not yet decided whether Johnson applies to the definition of "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the result is compelled by its recent decision in Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015). There, applying Johnson, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration's decision that a conviction for burglary was categorically a "crime of violence" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), which in turn defines crime of violence by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 16--using identical language to that in the § 924(c) residual clause. Judge Shubb also notes that N.D. Cal. Judge Orrick ruled the same way last week. United States v. Bell, No. 15-CR-00258 WHO, 2016 WL 344749, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016).
On February 19, 2016, the Court slightly amended its original decision in denying the government's motion for reconsideration here.
Finally, it worth mentioning that the issue won't help those facing 924(c) sentences in connection with drug trafficking offenses and will only affect some, not all, crimes of violence.
A federal court jury awarded a man $534,340 Friday on his excessive force claim that he was shot without warning by a Sacramento County sheriff’s deputy when he opened his front door in response to deputies banging on it.
Sac Bee, 11/6/15. Plaintiff's attorney Stewart Katz is starting another civil rights action involving a police shooting next Tuesday in Judge Shubb's courtroom in Hesselbein v. City of Elk Grove, et. al., No. 2:11-CV-2157-WBS.
In United States v. Kuzmenko, et. al, No. 2:11-CR-240-JAM, Judge Mendez today sentenced four defendants to prison who were convicted of various counts involving mortgage fraud in a jury trial in February: Peter Kuzmenko, 19 years imprisonment; Aaron New, 11 years, 3 months; Nadia Kuzmenko, 8 years; and Edward Shevtsov, 8 years.
In United States v. Rotteveel, No. 2:11-CR-447-WBS, Judge Shubb sentenced the defendant today to 40 months imprisonment after he was convicted by a jury in August 2014 of one count of mail fraud relating to 13 properties in Dixon.
By popular demand, I'm back from my extended absence. (Well, at least a couple of you had inquired if I had quit the blog). I had intended to take a week or so off but it somehow turned into six weeks. I won't even try to catch you all up on all the EDCA news, but I will post some highlights of the last few weeks.
Let's start with two Ninth Circuit opinions affirming Judge Shubb's rulings in criminal actions. First, in U.S. v. Katakis, No. 14-10283 (9th Cir. Aug 31, 2015), the Ninth Circuit affirmed Judge Shubb's grant of a Rule 29 acquittal on an obstruction of justice count. See my earlier post here. The defendant still faces sentencing on other counts.
In U.S. v. Navarro, No. 15-10245 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015), the Court held that a district court could not apply the "Drug Minus 2" retroactive guideline amendment to reduce a sentence to a release date before the 11/1/15 effective date of the amendment.
For years, the California Highway Patrol has consistently denied that its officers are subject to a quota for the number of traffic tickets they write each month.
The practice is illegal under state law, and agencies that have been found to use a quota system have paid millions of dollars in damages and faced lawsuits filed as recently as April.
Despite that, a veteran CHP officer testified in Sacramento this month that he was subjected to monthly admonishments from his superiors to boost his “enforcement contacts” with motorists to at least 100 a month, and that such performance evaluations went on for years.
The testimony by CHP motorcycle Officer Jay Brame, who is being sued along with another officer and the CHP in a case now playing out in federal court in Sacramento, was bolstered by the introduction of performance reviews urging him to pull over more motorists.
The direct language in the documents surprised even the judge presiding at the trial.
Defendants made a calculated decision to settle this case almost two years ago, and a final judgment was entered pursuant to their agreement. To set that judgment aside, the law requires a showing of fraud on the court, not an imperfect investigation. Defendants have failed to identify even a single instance of fraud on the court, certainly none on the part of any attorney for the government. They repeatedly argue that fraud on the court can be found by considering the totality of the allegations. Here, the whole can be no greater than the sum of its parts. Stripped of its bluster, defendants' motion is wholly devoid of any substance.
A jury will decide whether California Highway Patrol officers manhandled a 76-year-old man who suffered from slurred speech and balancing problems due to a stroke, a federal judge ruled.
Harrison Orr sued California, its Highway Patrol, and two CHP officers identified only by their last names - Brame and Plumb - alleging that his arrest violated state and federal law.
The officers claimed they thought Orr was under the influence of drugs.
Because there is a dispute as to whether Orr informed the officers in a non-threatening manner of his disability and inability to comply with their instructions, neither side is entitled to summary judgment, U.S. District Judge William Shubb ruled on Feb. 26.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 924
 § 924
 v. 
 § 1101
 § 16
 § 924
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.