United States v. Shawn Soleimani

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 8, 2020
• Docket: 19-50310
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 8 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50310

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cr-03066-JLS-1 v.

SHAWN JAMES SOLEIMANI, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 3, 2020** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, MURGUIA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Shawn James Soleimani appeals the district court’s order committing him to

the Attorney General’s custody for competency restoration under 18 U.S.C. §

4241(d). Soleimani argues that the commitment order violates his constitutional

right to equal protection because other defendants on pre-trial release who

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). are not in competency proceedings but who require mental health services are

allowed to obtain those services on an outpatient basis. We have jurisdiction under

the collateral order doctrine, United States v. Friedman, 366 F.3d 975, 980 (9th

Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

“The construction or interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we

review de novo.” United States v. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622, 624–25 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc) (citing United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir.

2002)). We also review de novo the constitutionality of a statute. United States v.

Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 2010).

To succeed on his equal protection claim, Soleimani must first show that the

government treats him differently from similarly situated persons. Pimentel v.

Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1106 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); United States v. Lopez-

Flores, 63 F.3d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir. 1995). If this showing is made, we must then

evaluate “under the appropriate level of scrutiny whether the distinction made

between the groups is justified.” Lopez-Flores, 63 F.3d at 1472 (citing Plyler v.

Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 217–18 (1982)).

A defendant who is incompetent to stand trial is not similarly situated to a

competent defendant with mental health issues on pre-trial release. A finding of

incompetency amounts to a legal determination that the defendant “is unable to

understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist

2 properly in his defense,” 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), such that if trial were to proceed, it

would constitute a violation of due process, Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348,

354 (1996). Therefore, an incompetent defendant such as Soleimani is not

similarly situated to defendants on pre-trial release whose mental health issues do

not affect competency to stand trial. Because Soleimani has not identified two

similarly situated groups of people, his equal protection claim fails. Pimentel, 670

F.3d at 1106 (noting that a finding that plaintiff was treated differently than

similarly situated individuals is a threshold showing in the equal protection

analysis).

AFFIRMED.