Daniel P. Collins

How Judge Collins rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Donald Trump (Republican)
Commissioned
2019-05-22
ABA rating
Unanimously Well Qualified
Education
Harvard College (A.B., summa cum laude, 1985); Stanford Law School (J.D., with distinction, Order of the Coif, 1988)
Signed orders read
39

How Judge Collins decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In a statutory-federal-nexus case, Collins compared neighboring provisions and treated Congress's omission of state and local governments from the narrower list as deliberate. The structural difference supported the ordinary national-government meaning of "United States."

“The obvious omission of the phrase ‘a State, [or a] political subdivision of a State’ from the smaller list in § 1028(c)(1) confirms that an identification document produced by a State would not be sufficient to satisfy the federal nexus described in § 1028(c)(1).”

In a Fourth Amendment case, Collins assessed a protective search by its objective scope and the officer-safety purpose that could justify it. A direct pocket search of a compliant detainee exceeded that purpose where a less intrusive frisk was available and no special circumstance required an immediate intrusion.

“Given that Brown was fully compliant and there were no special circumstances indicating a need for more immediately intrusive measures, the officer’s direct search of Brown’s pocket ‘was not reasonably limited in scope to the accomplishment of the only goal which might conceivably have justified its inception—the protection of the officer by disarming a potentially dangerous man.’”

In reviewing an agency's nonprofit-status decision, Collins compared the governing education statute with the tax provision the agency had borrowed. Requirements found only in the tax provision could not replace the distinct test Congress enacted for educational institutions.

“The Department thus invoked the wrong legal standards by relying on IRS regulations that impose requirements that go well beyond the HEA’s requirements and that instead implement a portion of § 501(c)(3) that has no counterpart in HEA § 103(13).”

Procedural preferences

In an electronic-evidence sanctions case, Collins applied Rule 37(e)'s specified findings instead of residual inherent authority. Because the selected sanction effectively resolved the excessive-force issue, the rule required intent to deprive rather than the district court's finding of recklessness.

“Given Rule 37(e)’s careful specification of the findings that must be made before any sanction may be imposed for a covered loss of information, it is clear that the rule, by its terms, precludes a court from resorting to inherent authority to evade its strictures.”

In a foreclosure appeal, Collins required the decree to resolve the parties' rights and supply the substantive sale terms before appellate jurisdiction attached. Unfinished valuation or sale instructions were not merely ministerial details that a premature notice of appeal could overlook.

“In all events, we now clarify that, in accordance with more than 100 years of Supreme Court precedent, for ‘a decree of sale in a foreclosure suit’ to be considered ‘a final decree for the purposes of an appeal’ under § 1291, it must ‘settle[] all the rights of the parties and leave[] nothing to be done but to make the sale and pay out the proceeds’ in accordance with the decree’s terms.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Tobler v. Sables, LLC
19-15251 · 2020-08-04
Appeal (appellants (Dennis and Cindi Tobler)) Denied

“We review de novo the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim ... and finding no error, we affirm. ... AFFIRMED.”

Abcarian v. Levine
19-55129 · 2020-08-25
Appeal (appellants (plaintiffs R. Abcarian et al.)) Denied

“The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' federal causes of action for failure to state a claim, and it declined to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. We affirm.”

In re Gardens Regional Hospital and Medical Center, Inc.
18-60016 · 2020-09-16
Appeal (appellant (Gardens Regional Hospital and Medical Center Liquidating Trust)) Granted in part

“We affirm the judgment of the BAP insofar as it holds that California's deduction of unpaid HQAF assessments from the supplemental payments made to Gardens Regional was permissible under the doctrine of equitable recoupment, but we reverse its judgment as to the fee-for-service payments. ... AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.”

Safaryan v. Barr
16-74039 · 2020-09-17
Petition for review (petitioner (Eduard Safaryan)) Denied

“Consequently, the petitioner in this case-who was convicted of a violation of Section 245(a)(1) in 2006-was properly ordered removed, and we deny his petition for review.”

Broidy Capital Management, LLC v. State of Qatar
18-56256 · 2020-12-02
Appeal (appellants (Elliott Broidy and Broidy Capital Management, LLC)) Denied

“Although for somewhat different reasons, we agree with the district court that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking under the FSIA, and we therefore affirm its judgment dismissing this action.”

Lazo v. Wilkinson
14-73182 · 2021-02-26
Petition for review (petitioner (Jaime Lazo)) Denied

“He was therefore properly ordered to be removed from the United States under that section, and we deny his petition for review.”

Miller v. United States
19-15122 · 2021-03-26
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff John Miller)) Granted in part

“The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's wrongful termination action as barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception, and remanded the case for further proceedings.”

United States v. Brown
19-50250 · 2021-05-12
Appeal (appellant (defendant James Antonio Brown)) Granted

“The district court therefore erred in denying Brown's motion to suppress. ... REVERSED and REMANDED.”

United States v. Silveira
18-56509 · 2021-05-13
Appeal (appellant (defendant Gregory Silveira)) Denied

“We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1291 and 2253(a), and we affirm.”

In re Hutchinson
19-60065 · 2021-10-19
Appeal (appellants (Chapter 7 debtors Leonard and Sonya Hutchinson)) Denied

“Plaintiffs ... appeal from the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit ... affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal with prejudice of their adversary complaint concerning certain tax liens asserted by the Internal Revenue Service. We affirm.”

Optional Capital, Inc. v. DAS Corporation
19-55128 · 2021-11-19
Appeal (appellant (claimant Optional Capital, Inc.)) Denied

“Because the 2013 judgment did not address Optional's and DAS's competing rights to the funds DAS had received from the Credit Suisse account in 2011, and did not award those funds to Optional, DAS did not violate the judgment by failing to turn over those funds to Optional. The district court properly concluded that DAS could not be held in contempt on this basis.”

United States v. Reyes
20-50016 · 2021-11-26
Appeal (appellant (defendant Olivia Reyes)) Granted in part

“We conclude that Wise remains good law after Irizarry, and we therefore vacate the sentence in part, affirm it in part, and remand.”

Draft for Judge Collins with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Collins, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Collins's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace