Michael Daly Hawkins

How Judge Hawkins rules, drawn from 37 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
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1994-09-15
Education
Arizona State University (B.A., 1967); Arizona State University College of Law (J.D., 1970); University of Virginia School of Law (LL.M., 1998)
Signed orders read
37

How Judge Hawkins decides

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

What persuades

In a tent-search case, Hawkins separated a reasonable expectation of privacy from permission to occupy public land. A concealed, enclosed tent and personal effects supported privacy even if the occupant was camping without authorization or engaged in illegal activity.

“However, we do not believe the reasonableness of Sandoval’s expectation of privacy turns on whether he had permission to camp on public land.”

In an environmental-liability case, Hawkins acknowledged that the plaintiffs offered a plausible reading of statutory disposal language but followed binding circuit interpretations of the same operative terms. Broad remedial purpose could not replace analysis grounded in the statute's text and structure.

“Plaintiffs’ interpretation appears a reasonable enough construction of § 9607(a)(3), and if we were writing on a blank slate, we might be persuaded to adopt it. However, we do not write on a blank slate.”

In an immigration notice case, Hawkins declined to import the strong delivery presumption developed for certified mail into a regular-mail regime. A sworn nonreceipt account, supported by the applicant's earlier appearance and lack of motive to avoid the hearing, ordinarily warranted an evidentiary hearing.

“Although it is still proper to presume that postal officers properly discharge their duties, delivery by regular mail does not raise the same ‘strong presumption’ as certified mail, and less should be required to rebut such a presumption.”

In an unlawful-reentry prosecution, Hawkins tested the removal order used as an element of the offense. The only charged removal ground treated a vehicular-manslaughter conviction as an aggravated felony, but intervening authority established that it was not, leaving no valid predicate and clear prejudice.

“Thus, Camacho was removed when he should not have been and clearly suffered prejudice.”

Cautions

In a military medical-malpractice case, Hawkins followed a directly controlling decision applying the incident-to-service bar to prenatal care at a military hospital. The panel criticized the doctrine and described the case as a compelling candidate for an exception, but left any change to the Supreme Court.

“If ever there were a case to carve out an exception to the Feres doctrine, this is it. But only the Supreme Court has the tools to do so.”

Signed rulings

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

In re Steven Kramer
· 1999-10-12
Appeal (appellant (attorney Steven Kramer)) Granted

“Because there is no evidence before us that such an inquiry occurred, the district court's order is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Cuevas-Gomez
· 1995-08-09
Appeal (appellant (defendant Leopaldo Cuevas-Gomez)) Granted

“Accordingly, we VACATE Cuevas-Go-mez's sentence and REMAND the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Rodrigo Sandoval
· 2000-01-24
Appeal (appellant (defendant Rodrigo Sandoval)) Granted

“His conviction is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for a new trial.”

In re Cervantes (County of Santa Cruz v. Cervantes)
· 2000-07-18
Appeal (appellant (County of Santa Cruz)) Granted

“Therefore, Cervantes' debt to the County for pre-judgment AFDC payments meets all three criteria under section 656(b) and is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. The decision of the BAP is REVERSED.”

United States v. Juan Gabriel Ruiz
· 2000-10-18
Appeal (appellant (defendant Juan Gabriel Ruiz)) Granted

“Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court with instructions that it permit Ruiz to withdraw his plea. REVERSED and REMANDED.”

Regina Salta v. INS
· 2002-12-30
Petition for review (petitioner (Regina Salta)) Granted

“PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED. REMANDED.”

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.
· 2002-06-06
Appeal (appellant (Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.)) Granted

“Because we also determine that there is no requirement that AMD show that what is sought would be discoverable in the proceedings before the European Commission, the district court may proceed to consider AMD's request on the merits. REVERSED and REMANDED.”

Winter v. United States
· 2001-05-25
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Steven W. Winter)) Granted

“The district court's grant of summary judgment is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Camacho-Lopez
· 2006-05-30
Appeal (appellant (defendant Jose Jesus Camacho-Lopez)) Granted

“We, therefore, reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the indictment. REVERSED and REMANDED.”

Joseph Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd.
15-35228 · 2016-07-27
Appeal (appellant (defendant Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd.)) Granted

“Thus, we reverse the district court's orders denying Teck's motion to strike and/or dismiss and motion for reconsideration, and remand for the processing of Plaintiffs' remaining claims. REVERSED AND REMANDED.”

Clare v. Clare
19-36039 · 2020-12-08
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Andrea Clare)) Granted

“We REVERSE in part the district court's evidentiary ruling, REVERSE summary judgment on the SCA claim, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED and REMANDED. Costs awarded to Appellant.”

Lim v. City of Long Beach
· 2000-06-27
Appeal (appellants (plaintiffs Seung Chun Lim et al., adult-business owners)) Granted in part

“AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED. Costs on appeal to Plaintiffs.”

Draft for Judge Hawkins with the record in hand

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

Opens in Ezel Pro.

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