Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Joshua Francisco, an inmate at Farmington Correctional Center (FCC), suffered from mental illness and was placed on suicide watch multiple times during his incarceration. Despite receiving treatment and being evaluated by mental health professionals, Francisco was found hanging in his cell on October 22, 2014, after his cellmate reported he was suicidal. Francisco had denied being suicidal to correctional officers and mental health staff earlier that day.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the correctional officers and the warden, finding no deliberate indifference to Francisco's medical needs. The court determined that the officers' actions did not rise to the level of criminal recklessness required to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the correctional officers and the warden were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the officers had conducted reasonable investigations and searches based on the information available to them and that Francisco's repeated denials of suicidal intent, along with the absence of a noose, did not indicate a strong likelihood of self-harm. The court also concluded that the warden was not personally involved in any unconstitutional custom or practice and that the claim of an unconstitutional policy requiring inmates to explicitly state they were suicidal was not supported by the evidence. View "Francisco v. Villmer" on Justia Law

In 2020, a student organization at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, along with two students, sued the University for alleged First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The case centered on the University's allocation of lounge space in the Coffman Memorial Union to certain student organizations, particularly nine cultural centers. The plaintiffs argued that this allocation constituted viewpoint discrimination and gave unbridled discretion to University officials.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed three of the five claims and later granted summary judgment in favor of the University on the remaining claims. The court found no evidence of viewpoint discrimination and deemed the unbridled discretion doctrine inapplicable to the University's past allocation decision. The plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment on one claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court agreed that the lounge space was a limited public forum and found that the University's allocation process was viewpoint neutral and reasonable. The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of viewpoint discrimination and that the University's decision was based on status-based distinctions, not viewpoint-based ones. The court also upheld the district court's finding that the unbridled discretion doctrine did not apply, as the challenge was to a past decision rather than an ongoing policy.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment, concluding that the University's allocation of lounge space did not violate the First Amendment. View "Viewpoint Neutrality Now! v. Regents of the University of Minnesota" on Justia Law

On December 26, 2019, Officers Rozeboom and Malone responded to a shoplifting report at Dick’s Sporting Goods in Papillion, Nebraska. The suspects were described as a black male and black female in a silver four-door sedan. Malone spotted a similar vehicle and conducted a traffic stop. Storrs, a black male, was driving, and Smith, a white female, was the passenger. Despite the discrepancy in the suspect description, the officers detained Storrs and Smith. During the encounter, Storrs and Smith were uncooperative, leading to their arrest and a search of their vehicle, which allegedly smelled of marijuana.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, finding they were entitled to qualified immunity on all claims. The court determined that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and probable cause for the continued detention and search based on the alleged odor of marijuana. The court also found no evidence of excessive force or First Amendment retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision in part, agreeing that the officers had probable cause to arrest Storrs and Smith for obstructing a peace officer and that there was no evidence of excessive force or First Amendment retaliation. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the claim of unlawful continued detention, finding that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion once they saw Smith was white. The court also found a genuine dispute of fact regarding the alleged odor of marijuana, precluding summary judgment on the illegal search claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Storrs v. Rozeboom" on Justia Law

Kenneth Hunt arrived at the Lee County Courthouse to testify in a criminal case. Directed outside due to courtroom scheduling, Hunt re-entered and sat on a staircase. Officer Dale Acosta confronted Hunt, leading to a heated exchange. Despite Hunt's explanation of his courthouse business, Acosta arrested him for obstruction, claiming Hunt disrupted the county tax office.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed most of Hunt's claims but allowed his Fourth Amendment claim against Acosta, a failure to train or supervise claim against Mayor Jimmy Williams and Chief of Police Martin Wilson, and a Monell claim against the City of Marianna. The court denied qualified and quasi-judicial immunity for Acosta and qualified immunity for Williams and Wilson. Acosta, Williams, and Wilson appealed the denial of immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's denial of quasi-judicial immunity for Acosta's initial stop of Hunt, as Acosta acted under a judge's directive. However, the court affirmed the denial of quasi-judicial and qualified immunity for Acosta's arrest of Hunt, finding no probable cause for obstruction. The court also reversed the denial of qualified immunity for Williams and Wilson, ruling that Hunt failed to show a pattern of unconstitutional acts by Acosta that would have put them on notice. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Hunt v. Acosta" on Justia Law

Officer Daniel Irish, while pursuing a suspect, was bitten by a police K9 named Thor, handled by Deputy Keith McNamara. Irish sued McNamara under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights due to excessive force and unreasonable seizure. The incident occurred during a high-speed chase that ended in a cemetery, where McNamara deployed Thor without a leash. Irish, unaware of the K9's presence, was bitten by Thor, who was commanded to "get him" by McNamara.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied McNamara's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court reasoned that it was clearly established that a seizure occurred under the Fourth Amendment, despite acknowledging the incident as a "highly unfortunate accident."The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court focused on whether it was clearly established that the K9's bite constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The court noted that for a seizure to occur, an officer must intentionally apply physical force or show authority to restrain an individual's freedom of movement. The court found that the law was not clearly established regarding whether an officer's subjective intent was necessary for a seizure. The court concluded that McNamara did not subjectively intend to seize Irish, as evidenced by his commands to Thor to disengage and his immediate actions to restrain the K9.The Eighth Circuit held that it was not clearly established that an officer could seize a fellow officer with a K9 without subjectively intending to do so. Therefore, McNamara was entitled to qualified immunity. The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss Irish's complaint. View "Irish v. McNamara" on Justia Law

S.A.A. filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Samantha Geisler, alleging Fourth Amendment violations during her arrest. The initial complaint, filed on September 20, 2021, claimed false arrest and excessive force but did not specify the capacity in which Geisler was sued. S.A.A. admitted she had not alleged official capacity claims. She amended her complaint twice before the deadline in May 2022 and sought to amend it a third time after the deadline, which the magistrate judge allowed with a warning. Geisler moved for summary judgment, arguing that S.A.A. failed to plead personal capacity claims as required by the Eighth Circuit’s clear statement rule. S.A.A. then moved to amend her complaint a fourth time, which the magistrate judge denied.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted Geisler’s motion for summary judgment, overruled S.A.A.’s objection to the magistrate judge’s denial of her motion to amend, and denied her fourth motion to amend. The court found that S.A.A. failed to plead personal capacity claims against Geisler, adhering to the Eighth Circuit’s clear statement rule, which interprets complaints silent on the capacity in which the defendant is sued as including only official capacity claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that S.A.A. did not explicitly plead individual capacity claims and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her fourth motion to amend the complaint. The court emphasized that S.A.A. failed to demonstrate diligence in meeting the scheduling order’s requirements, which is the primary measure of good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. View "S.A.A. v. Geisler" on Justia Law

Three gun rights organizations and their members challenged Minnesota’s permit-to-carry statute, which requires applicants to be at least 21 years old, arguing it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that the Second Amendment’s plain text covered their conduct and that the government failed to show that restricting 18 to 20-year-olds’ right to bear handguns in public was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Minnesota appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the age restriction facially unconstitutional for otherwise qualified 18 to 20-year-olds and enjoining its enforcement. The district court applied the two-part test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, focusing on the Second Amendment’s text and historical tradition. The court found that the plain text covered the plaintiffs’ conduct and that the government did not meet its burden to demonstrate a historical tradition of similar firearm regulations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that ordinary, law-abiding 18 to 20-year-olds are part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. The court found that Minnesota failed to provide sufficient historical analogues to justify the age restriction, noting that the state’s proffered evidence did not meet the burden of demonstrating a historical tradition of similar firearm regulations. Consequently, the court ruled that the age restriction in Minnesota’s permit-to-carry statute is unconstitutional. View "Worth v. Jacobson" on Justia Law

Following the fatal police shooting of Daunte Wright, protests erupted in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Sam Wolk, a protester, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First and Fourth Amendment violations and civil conspiracy against various law enforcement officials and agencies. Wolk claimed he was injured by tear gas, flashbang grenades, pepper spray, and rubber bullets used by officers during the protests, resulting in chronic knee pain.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the defendants' motions to dismiss most of Wolk's claims but dismissed his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. The defendants appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's denial of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) motion to dismiss, citing Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court also reversed the denial of qualified immunity for former Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon, as he had resigned before Wolk's injuries occurred. Additionally, the court found that the Fourth Amendment claims for excessive force and failure to intervene were not clearly established as constitutional violations at the time of the incident, granting qualified immunity to the supervisory defendants on these claims.However, the court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity for the First Amendment retaliation claims against the supervisory defendants, except for Gannon. The court found that more facts were needed to determine whether the officers' actions were driven by retaliatory animus. The court also reversed the district court's denial of the supervisory defendants' motion to dismiss the civil conspiracy claims, finding the allegations insufficient to show a meeting of the minds.The court reversed the district court's denial of the municipal defendants' motion to dismiss the Fourth Amendment and conspiracy claims but lacked jurisdiction over the First Amendment retaliation claim against the municipal defendants. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Wolk v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

Ethan Marks, a 19-year-old, sustained severe injuries, including a ruptured eyeball and traumatic brain injury, when Minneapolis Police Officer Benjamin Bauer shot him with a chemical-filled projectile from a close range during the George Floyd protests. Marks sued Bauer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court denied Bauer’s motion for summary judgment on the excessive force claim, finding genuine issues of material fact that precluded a grant of qualified immunity.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota found that Bauer’s use of force was not objectively reasonable under the circumstances and that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Bauer intended to use deadly force. The court also noted that existing precedent put Bauer on notice that deadly force is appropriate only in response to a significant threat of death or serious physical injury, which was not present in this case. Bauer appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s qualified immunity determination de novo. The court held that Marks was seized when Bauer shot him with a projectile, and that the force used was not objectively reasonable. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Marks did not pose an immediate threat at the time he was shot. The court also held that it was clearly established that using deadly force on a non-threatening suspect was unlawful. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, denying Bauer qualified immunity. View "Marks v. Bauer" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Thomas Clobes, a Christian employee at a 3M manufacturing plant in Minnesota, who objected to 3M's COVID-19 vaccination policy on religious grounds. Clobes was told he would be terminated if he did not get vaccinated. He submitted a religious accommodation request to 3M, asking to continue with the same accommodations he had been following, such as wearing a mask and maintaining social distance. 3M did not immediately grant the request and asked Clobes follow-up questions about his religious beliefs and objections to the vaccine. Meanwhile, 3M continued to send daily email and loudspeaker announcements urging employees to get vaccinated. However, the vaccine requirement was eventually lifted due to the Federal Contractor Mandate being enjoined.In the District Court of Minnesota, Clobes sued 3M, alleging religious discrimination and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The district court granted 3M's motion to dismiss, ruling that Clobes failed to demonstrate that he suffered an adverse employment action or that similarly situated non-Christians were treated differently by 3M. The court also found that Clobes failed to allege any conduct on 3M's part that rose to the level of severe or pervasive harassment, and that there was no causal connection between Clobes's religion and 3M's conduct. The court denied Clobes leave to amend his complaint, reasoning that amendment would be futile as Clobes failed to identify any additional facts that would establish a viable claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Clobes's complaint failed to plausibly support the elements of a hostile work environment claim, namely, that a causal nexus existed between 3M's allegedly harassing conduct and Clobes's status as a Christian, and that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment. The court also upheld the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint, as Clobes had not complied with the local rules requiring a copy of the proposed amended pleading to accompany any motion to amend. View "Clobes v. 3M Company" on Justia Law