United States v. 2020-04-08 | 19-50310 | USA V. SHAWN SOLEIMANI | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SHAWN JAMES SOLEIMANI,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-50310

D.C. No.
3:18-cr-03066-JLS-1

MEMORANDUM
*

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).
FILED

APR 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

3
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.