The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in CARVER v. LEHMAN, No. 06-35176, a prisoner appeal. The panel consisted of Warren J. Ferguson, Stephen Reinhardt, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
This case presents the question whether Washington state law creates a liberty interest in an inmate’s early release into community custody that is protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We hold that it does. We conclude, however, that this right was not clearly established at the time of the facts giving rise to this case. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity. I. Factual and Procedural Background In August 1999, Joseph Dale Carver pled guilty to child molestation in the third degree. He was sentenced to fifty-four months of confinement in the custody of the Washington State Department of Corrections (”DOC” or “Department”). Because he was a sex offender, state law also required that Carver be sentenced to a term of community custody to begin “either upon completion of the term of confinement or at such time as [he] is transferred to community custody in lieu of earned release[.]” See WASH. REV. CODE § 9.94A.710(1) (2006). He was sentenced to a thirty-six-month period of community custody. . . .

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment:
I respectfully part ways with the majority. I do not believe that Washington State law creates a Fourteenth Amendment . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an amended order in PIERCE v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, No. 05-55829, a prisoner appeal. The panel consisted of Betty B. Fletcher, M. Margaret McKeown, and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.

B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
In 2001, plaintiffs-appellants Fred Pierce, Timothy Lee Conn, Fermin Valenzuela, and Laurie D. Ellerston–pretrial detainees in Orange County’s jail facilities–initiated Pierce v. County of Orange, No. 05-55829 (D. Ct. No. 01-981), a class action suit against the County of Orange and Michael S. Carona, the county’s sheriff and agent. Seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, plaintiffs contend, in essence, that the Orange County jails are operated in an unconstitutional manner, depriving them of opportunities for exercise, unduly limiting their access to common areas, and impermissibly restricting their ability to practice religion. Plaintiffs further assert that they have been deprived of a number of the federal rights previously recognized in Stewart v. Gates, 450 F. Supp. 583 (C.D. Cal. 1978) (”Stewart“)–a decision and resulting injunctive orders (”the Stewart orders” or “the Stewart injunction”) that established standards for pretrial detention in Orange County jails. The plaintiffs seek relief for the same injuries under the California Constitution, as well as Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations (which sets minimum standards for county jails) in violation of § 815.6 of the California Government Code, and breach of § 54.1 of the California Civil Code. Finally, the plaintiffs in Pierce assert an equal protection claim under § 1983 based on the denial of equal treatment to disabled detainees, and they advance a separate claim for violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (”ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., alleging noncompliant jail facilities and denial of access to programs and services available to non-disabled detainees. On appeal, the. . .

The opinion filed on March 24, 2008 and published at 519 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2008), is AMENDED as follows:
(1) At 519 F.3d at 1016, after the sentence ending, “with or without reasonable accommodations, meet the essential eligibility requirements to participate,” insert the following additional two sentences:
Whether this “program access” standard may reasonably be met or whether any restriction on access is reasonably related to a legitimate government objective is necessarily fact-specific. We also emphasize that the district court should look at the offerings as a whole and in their entirety and thus the court is not . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in SOLIS v. BELTRAN, No. 05-56637, a prisoner appeal. The panel consisted of Dorothy W. Nelson, Stephen Reinhardt, and Pamela Ann Rymer, Circuit Judges.

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff Salvador Solis (”Solis”), a former inmate at the Los Angeles County jail, brought this pro se civil action alleging constitutional violations stemming from Solis’s . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in SHAKUR v. SCHRIRO, No. 05-16705, a prisoner appeal. The panel consisted of Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
We must decide whether prison officials violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Free Exercise Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause by denying . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in GREENE v. SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, No. 06-16957, a prisoner appeal. The panel consisted of Arthur L. Alarcón, David R. Thompson, and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

THOMPSON, Senior Circuit Judge:
Darin D. Greene (”Greene”), a former maximum security prisoner at the Claybank facility of the Solano County jail . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an order in WILLIAMS v. ALAMEDIA, No. 05-55604, a prisoner appeal. The panel consisted of Kim McLane Wardlaw, Carlos T. Bea, and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.

Keith Lee Williams appeals the district court’s order granting Edward Alameida’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Williams sued Alameida, the Director of the California Department of Corrections (”CDC”), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he was held in CDC custody past the date of his sentence for failure to submit a DNA sample in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Ex Post Facto Clause, and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. On November 5, 2007, Alameida moved to dismiss this appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. In support of this motion, Williams’s parole agent declared that Williams was released from prison and placed on parole on June 2, 2005, but failed to report to his parole agent. An arrest war16867 . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an order in PHILLIPS v. HUST, No. 04-36021, a prisoner appeal. The panel consisted of James R. Browning, Dorothy W. Nelson, and Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Circuit Judges.

Our September 14, 2007 order denying the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, and the accompanying dissent, are hereby designated for publication. 13571 . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an order in HYDRICK v. HUNTER, No. 03-56712, a prisoner appeal. The panel consisted of Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge, Harry Pregerson and Stephen S. Trott, Circuit Judges.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs-Appellees represent a class of approximately six hundred civilly committed persons and those awaiting commitment at Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (”SVP Act”). Plaintiffs allege that the conditions of their confinement violate their constitutional rights. They request declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based largely on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, which the Defendants now appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; we affirm in part and reverse in part. . . .

The opinion in this case published at 466 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006), is withdrawn and replaced by the new opinion and dissent filed concurrently with this order. Chief Judge Schroeder and Judge Pregerson voted to deny appellant’s petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc. Judge Trott voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing and recommended granting the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested en banc rehearing. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(b). The petitions for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. OPINION PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs-Appellees represent a class of approximately six hundred civilly committed persons and those awaiting commitment at Atascadero State Hospital pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (”SVP Act”). Plaintiffs allege that the conditions of their confinement violate their constitutional rights. They request declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based largely on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, which the Defendants now appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; we affirm in part and reverse in part. . . .

TROTT, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I My disagreement with my colleagues is limited to one critical issue. We agree that plaintiffs cannot seek damages in this lawsuit against state officials in their official capacities, and that plaintiffs cannot seek damages from the State either. So, what is left where the officials are concerned? A lawsuit against them personally for acts and omissions alleged to have . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in WEILBURG v. SHAPIRO, No. 05-15540, a prisoner appeal. The panel consisted of Ronald M. Gould and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges, and Alfred V. Covello, District Judge.

COVELLO, District Judge:
This is an appeal of the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of an action for damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (”section 1983″). The pro se plaintiffs, Daro . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in QUARLES v. KANE, No. 06-16308, a prisoner appeal. The panel consisted of Alex Kozinski, Edward Leavy and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Alvin Ray Quarles, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, of his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims that his plea agreement and his constitutional rights were violated when, pursuant to a post-conviction amendment to Cal. Penal Code § 2085.5, the amount of restitution payments deductible from his prison wages was increased to a maximum of 50% of the wages, and restitution payments were made deductible from trust accounts as well as from wages. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Quarles alleges that he was convicted in 1989. He alleges that in his plea agreement he agreed to pay restitution of $10,000, which was to be collected pursuant to section 2085.5. At that time section 2085.5 provided that “the Director of Corrections may deduct a reasonable amount not to exceed 20 percent from the wages of a prisoner.” In 1992 section 2085.5 was amended to authorize deduction of a minimum of 20% to a maximum of 50% of an inmate’s wages and deposits. Quarles alleges that in October 2003 he received a trust account statement indicating that 33% of his wages had been taken for restitution. [1] The amendment to section 2085.5 did not increase the amount of restitution, but rather increased the permissible rate at which restitution payments may be collected. This amendment did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it did not impose additional punishment on Quarles. See Russell v. Gregoire, 124 F.3d 1079, 1085 (9th Cir. 1997). [2] Quarles also contends that, because his plea agreement stipulated that he would pay restitution pursuant to section 2085.5, and that at the time he entered into the agreement sec. . .