UNITED STATES v. GONZALEZ (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-13No. Nos. 19-30270, 20-30000, 20-30018, 20-30044

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendants' motions to dismiss and their convictions, finding that federal jurisdiction was proper under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) and that the statute is constitutional as applied to defendants who assaulted a federal inmate at a facility where persons were held in federal custody.

Four state and federal inmates housed at Yakima County Jail sexually assaulted a fellow federal inmate and were charged under federal law. They appealed the denial of their motions to dismiss, arguing that federal courts lacked jurisdiction because the state jail was not a qualifying facility under the federal statute, and that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by criminalizing their conduct at a state facility.

The court rejected both arguments. The court found that federal jurisdiction was proper because the victim was held in federal custody by direction of the United States Marshal Service, satisfying the statute's jurisdictional requirement. The court also held that the statute was constitutional as applied to these defendants, relying on prior precedent establishing that protecting federal inmates from sexual abuse falls within Congress's necessary and proper powers to maintain federal detention facilities.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a state jail qualifies as a federal facility under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) when housing federal inmates
Whether Congress has constitutional authority to criminalize sexual assault of federal inmates at state facilities
Interpretation of the statutory jurisdictional requirement that persons be held 'by direction of' a federal agency

Procedural posture

Four defendants conditionally pleaded guilty to sexual assault charges and were sentenced; they appealed the denial of their pretrial motions to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction and constitutional grounds.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM *

Maria Andrea Gonzalez, Brooklyn Marie Hernandez-Proctor, Nicole Lee Sunny Cloud, and Latisha Lavern Birdsong (collectively “Defendants”) were state and federal inmates housed at Yakima County Jail (“Yakima”). While there, Defendants sexually assaulted a fellow federal inmate. They were charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1) and (2), conditionally pled guilty, and were sentenced. Now, Defendants appeal the denial of their motions to dismiss their indictments and their criminal judgments, arguing that federal jurisdiction was lacking under Section 2241(a) and that Congress overreached in Section 2241(a) by criminalizing their conduct at a state jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo both the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment, United States v. Marguet-Pillado, 560 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2009), and a challenge to a criminal statute for unconstitutional overreach of congressional authority, United States v. Mujahid, 799 F.3d 1228, 1232 (9th Cir. 2015).

Defendants argue that the government has not met the jurisdictional element of Section 2241(a), which proscribes sexual assault at facilities “in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency.” 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the government needed to show that Yakima is a “facility in which persons are held in custody” either (1) “by direction of ․ the head of any Federal department or agency,” or (2) “pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency.” Id. Because Yakima is a facility where persons, namely the victim, were held in federal custody by direction of the United States Marshal Service, the government has met the jurisdictional element of Section 2241(a).

Defendants also argue that 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) is unconstitutional as applied to them. In Mujahid, we held that Section 2241 is facially constitutional because it is

“a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others.”

Mujahid, 799 F.3d at 1235–36 (quoting United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126, 149, 130 S.Ct. 1949, 176 L.Ed.2d 878 (2010)).

For the same reasons described in Mujahid, Section 2241(a) is constitutional as applied to Defendants—individuals in state and federal custody who sexually assaulted another federal inmate at the same facility. See Mujahid, 799 F.3d at 1235–36 (weighing the factors set forth in Comstock to determine whether Section 2241 is within the scope of Congresss authority). The federal government plainly has an interest in protecting federal inmates from sexual abuse. See also United States v. Pacheco, 977 F.3d 764, 769 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The evolution of [18 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2244] over time affirms Congresss intent to broadly protect federal detainees from sexual abuse.”).

AFFIRMED.