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

Story, an African-American inmate in Arkansas, sued four correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights during a visual body-cavity search that occurred after Story returned to the Williams Correctional Facility from the Pine Bluff unit school. Story alleges that officers told him to remove his clothes, to lift his genitals, and to bend over and spread his buttocks and that the search took place in front of other inmates and in view of security cameras so female correctional officers observed the search through a video feed. He claims that an officer called him “monkey.” The district court, screening the complaints before service of process (28 U.S.C. 1915A), dismissed them without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Story did not establish that the search violated his clearly established constitutional rights. The officers were not on clear notice that the aspects of the search to which Story objects contravened the Fourth Amendment. View "Story v. Foote" on Justia Law

Nurse Dalton was terminated from her supervisory position at the ManorCare skilled nursing facility. Dalton alleged interference with her statutory rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601, and discrimination based on her Chronic Kidney Disease disability in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Ch. 216, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. ManorCare claimed that nurses that Dalton supervised had complained about her job performance and that Dalton had received a Third/Final Written Warning for violating Major/Type B Work Rules, citing inappropriate negative comments about her work at the nurses’ station, where patients could overhear; failure to notify staff members she had cancelled a meeting; and taking an extended lunch break and failing to attend patient care conferences. There were also problems with attendance and late reports. Dalton understood that any further performance-related issue could result in termination. The district court dismissed all claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Dalton’s termination was the end of an on-going, unrelated disciplinary process. View "Dalton v. Manor Care of West Des Moines, LLC" on Justia Law

The City of Little Rock issued Carrick three citations for violating municipal ordinances. In Arkansas, such citations, if contested, are initially tried to a judge and can be appealed to a jury in the state trial court, Ark. Code 16-96-112. Carrick contested the citations and was found guilty of two violations following the initial bench trial. The court imposed no punishment. Carrick then appealed to a jury, paying a $150 filing fee and a $15 "technology fee," both of which are non-refundable. After an initial mistrial, the case against Carrick was dismissed. Carrick sought a refund of the fees. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed denial of a refund; the Arkansas Supreme Court denied review. Carrick filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of the Arkansas Constitution, Arkansas statutes, and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The district court denied relief. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the non-refundable fees served as impermissible barriers to the exercise of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because Carrick had no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial regarding his alleged ordinance violations. View "Carrick v. Beebe" on Justia Law

Prisoners on death row filed suit, challenging Missouri's execution protocol as violating the federal Controlled Substances Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and based on Eighth Amendment due process, ex post facto, and other claims. The district court sealed certain documents or docket entries, making them inaccessible to the public. There was no indication in the record why the entries were sealed, nor any explanation of what types of documents were sealed. Publisher Larry Flynt filed motions to intervene in both cases, under Federal Rule 24(b), and moved to unseal the records and entries. No party opposed Flynt's motions to intervene. One case had already been dismissed. In his motions, Flynt stated he had an interest in the sealed records as a publisher and as an advocate against the death penalty. Flynt claimed a heightened interest because Franklin, who had confessed to shooting Flynt, was a Missouri death row inmate and a plaintiff in both cases. Franklin was executed in November 2013; on that same day the district court denied Flynt's motion to intervene in one case as moot, and in the other, stating that "generalized interest" does not justify intervention. The Eighth Circuit reversed; for reasons of judicial efficiency, Rule 24(b) intervention is often preferable to filing a separate action. View "Flynt v. Lombardi" on Justia Law

A Minnesota jury convicted Martin of first-degree murder, committed at age 17. Martin received a mandatory life sentence without possibility of release. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed and rejected a challenge to the jury’s composition under Batson. Martin filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. While it was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court held that mandatory life sentences without parole for defendants who commit homicide before age 18 violate the Eighth Amendment. Martin argued that Miller applied retroactively to him. The district court denied the petition. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Miller does not apply retroactively on collateral review. The Minnesota Supreme Court did not unreasonably determine that the trial court properly rejected Martin’s Batson challenge. View "Martin v. Symmes" on Justia Law

The Festus City Council terminated Draper from his position as City Administrator six months into a three-year employment contract, after the election of a council member who was critical of Draper’s performance. The city had refused to reschedule or continue the hearing regarding Draper’s job performance. Neither Draper nor his attorney was present. Several witnesses testified. The council concluded that Draper had manipulated the evaluation process to choose an engineering firm to complete a road project; that Draper had authorized heating system repairs and the purchase of new windows without competitive bidding, in violation of Festus policy; that Draper had sent a memorandum stating that the sick-leave-bonus program had been abolished when it had not been; and that Draper had requested reimbursement for a hotel room he had paid for with his Festus credit card. The district court entered summary judgment, rejecting claims of violations of procedural and substantive-due-process rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a section 1983 conspiracy claim, breach of contract, and violation of the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 536.010-536.160. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The evidence supported the city’s decision to terminate Draper, so and that its decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. View "Draper v. City of Festus" on Justia Law

Responding to a report of an assault that was no longer in progress, Sheriff's Deputy Olson shot and killed Capps. Capps's parents sued Deputy Olson for using excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. Deputy Olson alleges Capps was charging towards him with a weapon at the time of the shooting. Capps's parents allege Deputy Olson shot Capps in the back when Capps was unarmed. Deputy Olson moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, holding that outstanding questions of fact precluded a grant of qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Deputy Olson had fair and clear warning at the time of the shooting that the use of deadly force against a suspect who did not pose a threat of serious bodily injury or death was unconstitutional. View "Capps v. Olson" on Justia Law

Washington, an African-American, began working for American Airlines in 2002, when American acquired the company for which Washington had worked since 1974. Washington applied for the position of Machinist in 2007, but was not promoted after the company’s examiner concluded that Washington failed to complete satisfactorily complete a qualifying test. Four other applicants, all Caucasian, tested with a different examiner before Washington; all were successful. The sixth applicant, also Caucasian, was tested by Washington’s examiner after Washington’s examination and failed. Washington was tested for more than four hours, but the examiner terminated the examination when he concluded that Washington removed the bushing he was machining from a lathe before he had finished. Washington claims that employees laughed and made disparaging comments. The company’s Manual provides that an employee “may have a witness of his choice present” during the exam. Washington had requested a union witness. A subject matter expert witnessed Washington’s exam, but no union witness was present. Washington exhausted administrative remedies and sued. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of American. Washington had not demonstrated that American was motivated by race (42 U.S.C. 1981; Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e) or that race was a “contributing factor” under the Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 213.010. View "Washington v. American Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Lyons, a part-time lecturer at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, gave a student athlete a grade of “F” in the Fall 2010 semester. The student appealed. Lyons’s supervisor determined the student should be allowed to submit a second paper. Lyons complained to Dean Vaught, who referred the appeal to the Academic Standards Committee, which also determined the student should be allowed to write a second paper. Vaught upheld the ruling. The student submitted a second paper. An appointed committee gave it a 75% grade; Vaught instructed the registrar to change the student’s course grade to D. Lyons then met with Chancellor Morton, claiming preferential academic treatment for student athletes. Morton did not take action. Lyons continued to pursue the matter. He received no advance notice that his course would be eliminated for the Spring 2012 semester. Lyons sued for First Amendment retaliation, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The defendant-administrators unsuccessfully moved to dismiss, alleging that Lyons failed to state a claim and they were entitled to qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit reversed. Lyons failed to allege plausibly that his only constitutionally protected speech could have been a substantial or motivating factor in defendants’ alleged adverse employment action. View "Lyons v. Vaught" on Justia Law

A guard found a letter near Porter’s former cell, addressed to the Missouri Governor. It had Porter’s name on the return address and said it contained anthrax. An inmate near the cell had threatened “to get” Porter. An investigation concluded that a different inmate wrote the letter. Officials took no further action. Three months later, Porter filed an unrelated 42 U.S.C. 1983 case. Officials then wrote a conduct violation against Porter for the anthrax threat despite the investigation months earlier. Porter timely filed a grievance, but never received a response. Porter had a second disciplinary hearing on the anthrax charge and was found “Not Guilty” with a recommendation to dismiss and expunge. The warden overruled the recommendation, reinstating his administrative segregation. Porter submitted a timely grievance, claiming retaliation for his unrelated section 1983 case. Porter was not released from segregation until he served five months. More than 14 months after Porter filed his grievance, the new warden confirmed the dismissal and expungement and apologized. Porter filed suit for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The delays in responding to Porter were unjustified, but did not prevent him from using follow-up procedures. View "Porter v. Dormire" on Justia Law