Adom v. California DOC (9th Cir. - Sept. 8, 2026)

The majority (Judges Paez and Forrest) and dissent (Judge Bea) disagree on whether the California Department of Corrections may have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it took away adult diapers from a 57-year old prisoner with spinal damage (alongside a prior stroke) who uses a wheelchair and who suffers from incontinence -- both Nos. 1 and 2. The majority says "Yes" whereas the dissent says "No."

At its core, Judge Bea's dissent relies on the fact that staff at the prison "reviewed [the patient's] medical records" and "were unable to find any evidence to sustain [his] claim that the [] incontinence supplies were medically necessary." It's an "adequate investigation," he says, to review some documents and to conclude therefrom that someone does not, in fact, involuntarily pee and poo in their bed. (Why someone would purportedly fake incontinence to obtain adult diapers -- hardly your typical prison currency -- is left unexplained.)

I assume that there are indeed some medical conditions that can be viewed on a CT or MRI or the like that may cause someone to become incontinent. But I doubt that every reason for incontinence can be so easily objectively verified. I would assume that the most powerful evidence of incontinence is the pee and/or poo in someone's bed, no?

So when -- as seemingly undisputed here -- someone is regularly soiling one's sheets, it seems very hard to me to argue that a doctor can legitimately say "Sorry, you don't actually need diapers, because I can't find any physical evidence that explains why you're doing what you're doing." If a doctor said that to a federal judge, for example, I'm fairly confident that the judge wouldn't say "Oh, okay then. I guess I'll just keep crapping my pants. Thanks for the help."

I would think that a fairly fundamental component of human decency is not being forced to wake up with pee and/or poop coating one's person. No?

People v. Stammers (Cal. Ct. App. - Sept. 4, 2026)

Be careful of the memes you share with your friends.

The Court of Appeal provides graphic details about what happened on this particular date, after the two met on a dating website. The victim went to his house, the (alleged) perpetrator made dinner, they shared some wine, they got in his hot tub, they made out, they went to his couch and watched television, and then: [Warning -- This is where it gets graphic]

"While on the couch, they touched one another and had consensual vaginal sex. Defendant stopped after a few minutes. Doe was “confused” when he stopped and “was questioning why.” Defendant testified that he and Doe attempted to have vaginal sex but stopped because he was unable to maintain a sufficient erection.

Defendant positioned himself behind Doe on the couch and touched her anus with his finger. After she told him to stop and pulled his hand away from her anus, he told her, “It’s okay, just relax.” Doe described what happened next: “After that it’s just all of a sudden I felt a big pressure pull me down and my face was facing the TV, then became facing down to the pillow, and a huge force on me and I couldn’t move. And there was enormous pain just came to something was in my butt. It was really, really painful and I was so scared. And first I couldn’t breathe at the beginning because my face was in the middle of pillow and I had to struggle to – to get to breathe first, and then – then trying to get him off of me.” She believed defendant’s penis was inside her anus because she did not think the “enormous pain” she felt could have been caused by a finger. Doe struggled and screamed, but defendant continued for several minutes.

Doe eventually got away and went into the bathroom. Her anus was bleeding. (A forensic examination conducted later that night revealed tearing in Doe’s perianal area.) Doe then stood outside the bathroom, attempting to get defendant’s attention, but he did not notice her. After gathering her belongings, she approached defendant and told him she was bleeding. Doe asked defendant, “you don’t understand what no means?” She left the house and called 911 from the driveway."

Defendant gets tried for forcible digital penetration, is convicted, and is sentenced to three years in prison. (The opinion doesn't mention this, but from the Megan's Law website, seems like he's already served his entire sentence at this point.)

The Court of Appeal reverses the conviction. At trial, there was a ton of evidence introduced regarding memes that the defendant had forwarded to his friends. As Justice Grover explains: "The challenged evidence conveyed to the jury that defendant is crude, sexist, and racist. And therein lies the problem. With two possible exceptions, the evidence of defendant’s communications has no legal relevance to the legitimate issues of his truthfulness, use of force, or intent to commit sexual assault. The communications as a whole reflect defendant’s apparent enthusiasm for sharing demeaning jokes about women and people of certain races, but they shed no light on the issues being tried."

It would be interesting to see what happens on remand. (Though I doubt I'll ever actually find out.) The defendant has already done his time in prison. So you might think both sides might be fine if he simply pleaded guilty at this point, since it doesn't really doesn't matter. But he's also a registered sex offender, and I'm sure he doesn't want that, so maybe he takes a shot at getting an acquittal at a retrial? But that'll cost him attorney's fees, etc. The state, meanwhile, has gotten its pound of flesh, but might want to both save money (and hence not re-prosecute) and yet simultaneously probably wants to keep the defendant on the sex offender registry. And the victim? Does she want to go through yet another trial?

Maybe he pleads down to a lesser offense at this point? Who knows.

Regardless, one lesson remains: Be careful what you send to others. Even your friends. Even if you trust them, there's always the possibility that someone else will get a hold of them.

Including but not limited to the authorities.

(Of course, the appropriate lesson might also be not to send racist and sexist memes in the first place.)

Sandford v. Sandford (Cal. Ct. App. - Sept. 3, 2026)

Sometimes it pays to (allegedly) steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from your siblings.

U.S. v. Nasri (9th Cir. - Sept. 2, 2026)

Do you long for those halcyon days of first-year (and/or advanced) Civil Procedure? Do you feel compelled to get a daily dose of Pennoyer v. Neff, the intricacies of in rem jurisdiction, and the complex principles of territorial sovereignty?

If so, these 127 single-spaced pages are for you.

The opinion is by Judge Desai. Judge Bybee authors a concurrence. Judge Desai writes a concurrence of her own. Then Judge Bennett writes a dissent.

It is a civil procedure professor's dream.

And an ordinary litigant's nightmare.

Even more so when you add in, as here, complexities involving waiver, fugitive disentitlement, and the party presentation doctrine.

Overall, a roller coaster ride of procedure.

People v. Espinosa (Cal. Ct. App. - Aug. 31, 2026)

Here's a line you don't see that often:

"Defendant was 75 years old when he committed his crimes in September 2009. . . ."

You wouldn't think that'd be a murder or anything like that, and it's not. "Defendant was convicted on three counts: (A) one count of engaging in sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child who is 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (a)); and (B) two counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child who is younger than 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (a))." Ooof.

According to the opinion, Mr. Espinosa is still confined, albeit in "a privately owned, noncustodial, long-term care facility (the Facility)." The question is whether he should be granted compassionate relief, as he is 92 years old at this point and functionally immobile.

You might think that the issue is about "compassion" or something like that, but not really. It's instead simply who pays. Right now, the Department of Corrections is paying for his facility, since he's still "in prison." The Department wants him to apply for Medi-Cal so someone else -- e.g., the federal government -- pays.

For Mr. Espinosa, it probably matters little. Except that maybe he gets transferred to a worse facility.

Sometimes "prison" is better.

U.S. v. Morgovsky (9th Cir. - Aug. 31, 2026)

Judge Bea begins this opinion with:

"For years, Naum Morgovsky smuggled components for night-vision and thermal-vision rifle scopes into Russia and laundered the proceeds of his illicit enterprise through a network of offshore banks. But federal investigators eventually got Morgovsky in their sights."

Get it?