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

Plaintiff brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that Isanti County, Minnesota (the “County”) violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it unlawfully prosecuted him under the County’s solid waste ordinance (the “Solid Waste Ordinance”). Plaintiff also asserted Minnesota state law claims for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings as to the federal claims in favor of the County and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the remaining state law claims.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that while Plaintiff’s opening brief lists 21 cases, which Plaintiff contends constitute proof the County used the Solid Waste Ordinance to wrongly prosecute property owners, none of these cases are properly before the court as they were not included in the complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint contains insufficient factual allegations to sustain a municipal liability claim. Accordingly, the court held that without a constitutional violation, there can be no Section 1983 liability. View "Keith Kiefer v. Isanti County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued a Missouri judge for putting his kids in jail twice, once after a custody hearing and again after ordering law enforcement to pick them up in Louisiana. The complaint alleged that Defendant’s action of placing Plaintiff’s children in jail and then later in a juvenile-detention facility violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendant argued that he should receive absolute immunity, but the district court disagreed and ruled that the case could proceed. At issue on appeal is whether judicial immunity shields these acts.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court explained that Defendant’s decision to personally escort the kids to jail took what would otherwise be a judicial act too far. Judges have the authority to order an officer or a bailiff to escort an unruly litigant to jail. The court wrote that Defendant crossed the line; however, when he personally escorted the kids to jail, stood there while they removed their clothes and belongings, and personally came back an hour later to release them. Further, the court explained that here, even if Defendant had no “express authority” to issue the pick-up order, he is immune because he had jurisdiction to issue one. He cannot be sued, in other words, no matter how erroneous his interpretation of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act may be. View "D. Bart Rockett v. The Honorable Eric Eighmy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an O’Fallon City, Missouri council member, sued the City of O’Fallon (City), its mayor, Bill Hennessy, and the O’Fallon City Council (City Council) based on their alleged violation of her civil rights. The district court initially stayed Plaintiff’s suit because impeachment proceedings initiated by Defendants were underway. Plaintiff was eventually impeached by the City Council but declined to pursue any available state remedies. The district court subsequently lifted the stay. Defendants moved for dismissal on abstention grounds as well as claim preclusion. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s case under claim preclusion principles based on her failure to pursue judicial review in the state courts. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court’s abstention under Younger was improper because an exception to Younger abstention should have been applied to enable the court to act before her impeachment proceedings concluded.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff failed to challenge the dismissal below and failed to challenge it on appeal until her reply brief. Appellate courts “do not generally review arguments first raised in a reply brief.” The court held that Plaintiff’s contention that she did, in fact, raise the issue in her initial brief is belied by the brief itself. She only mentions that the district court dismissed the case on claim preclusion grounds for her failure to seek judicial review in state court in her recounting of the procedural history of her case. This is insufficient for the court to consider the challenge to be “meaningfully argued.” View "Katie Gatewood v. City of O'Fallon, Missouri" on Justia Law

Police officers shot and killed a teenage boy. His parents, Plaintiffs, sued the officers and the City of Benton, Arkansas, under Section 1983 and state law. After the district court dismissed the case on the pleadings, the Eighth Circuit court reversed and remanded in part. The district court then granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The parents argued that the parties genuinely dispute how their son moved the gun before being shot and that this dispute is material.   The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court explained that the parents identified a genuine dispute of material fact about whether their son pointed his gun at the officers. A jury could conclude, based on the expert’s testimony, that Plaintiffs’ son “never pointed the gun at the officers” but instead “moved his gun in compliance with commands to drop his gun.” This precludes summary judgment. The district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ excessive force claim is reversed. Because the district court relied on its excessive-force conclusion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Monell and state-law claims, those decisions are vacated. View "Piper Partridge v. City of Benton, Arkansas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff has been incarcerated on death row in Arkansas since 1997. After he was denied relief in state court under Arkansas’s postconviction DNA testing statute, Plaintiff filed this federal lawsuit against several Arkansas officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on both standing and immunity grounds. The district court denied the motion, and Defendants appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that while Plaintiff does not expressly allege that the Attorney General currently possesses any of the DNA evidence he wants to test, Act 1780 provides the Attorney General an opportunity to play a critical role in the statute’s implementation. And here, the Attorney General responded to Plaintiff’s Act 1780 petition by opposing it in state court. The Attorney General “thereby caused,” in part, Plaintiff’s ongoing injury of being denied access to DNA testing that might prove his innocence. As such, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an injury in fact that was caused by Defendants and that would be redressed by the relief he seeks in his Section 1983 action. He has standing to bring his procedural due process challenge to Act 1780. Further, the court found that Defendants here are not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment because Plaintiff seeks prospective declaratory and injunctive relief and has alleged a sufficient connection between the defendants and Act 1780’s enforcement. View "Stacey Johnson v. Tim Griffin" on Justia Law

In this § 1983 lawsuit, Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop ongoing physician disciplinary proceedings in which the Iowa Board of Medicine (“the Board”), represented by the Attorney General of Iowa, charges Wassef with violating Iowa law by inappropriately accessing patient records during his residency at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (“UIHC”). The Board is responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Iowa and is authorized to discipline doctors who do not meet minimum practice standards established by the Board and by the Iowa Legislature. Plaintiff alleged the ongoing proceedings violate federal law -- the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). The district court dismissed the action, concluding that it must abstain pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The court also dismissed the due process claim because Plaintiff failed to exhaust state remedies and failed to plausibly allege a claim.   The Eighth Circuit modified the dismissal to be without prejudice, vacated the district court’s due process ruling, and granted Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion To Substitute Parties. The court concluded the district court properly abstained under Younger. However, as the state disciplinary proceedings are ongoing, the court should have declined to reach the merits of the due process claim, which Plaintiff can litigate in the state proceedings. Accordingly, the court modified the dismissal to be without prejudice, which is usually the proper disposition when a court abstains under Younger. View "Shafik Wassef v. Dennis Tibben" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, then a conductor and now an engineer for Union Pacific Railroad (“Union Pacific”), brought this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) when Union Pacific refused Plaintiff’s requests that he be allowed to bring his Rottweiler service dog on board moving Union Pacific freight trains as a reasonable accommodation to ameliorate the effects of Plaintiff’s undisputed disabilities, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and migraine headaches resulting from his prior service in the military. At the end of a week-long trial, the district court denied Union Pacific’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The jury then returned a verdict for Plaintiff, awarding compensatory but not punitive damages. The district court granted Union Pacific’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury’s verdict.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court agreed that “benefits and privileges of employment” (1) refer only to employer-provided services; (2) must be offered to non-disabled individuals in addition to disabled ones; and (3) does not include freedom from mental or psychological pain. Further, the court noted that mitigating pain is not an employer-sponsored program or service. As such, providing a service dog at work so that an employee with a disability has the same assistance the service dog provides away from work is not a cognizable benefit or privilege of employment. View "Perry Hopman v. Union Pacific Railroad" on Justia Law

Two brothers died in a car accident on the way to a school basketball tournament. The brothers were driving to a basketball tournament for their school, Park Christian. The team drove in a three-car caravan: Park Christian's assistant coach and head coach each drove a car of players, with the brothers’ car at the end. During the drive, the head coach cut off a semi-truck, and the semi-truck encroached into the next lane. To avoid a collision, the brothers veered into the median, rolled, and crashed. A Sergeant prepared a Crash Reconstruction Report for the Minnesota State Patrol and found that the brothers’ interaction with the semi-truck caused the accident   Their parents brought claims under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985(2) against Park Christian School, Park Christian administrators, the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota State Patrol, and Minnesota State Patrol officers. The district court dismissed their claims, and Plaintiffs’ appealed. Plaintiffs’ Rule 60.02(b) motion before the state courts alleged that there was a personal connection between the Sergeant and Park Christian which impacted the fairness and impartiality of the Sergeant's investigation and trial testimony   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that Rooker-Feldman does not apply and that collateral estoppel bars the Section 1983 claim. The court wrote that it is doubtful that the Section 1985(2) claim survives collateral estoppel. But for the purposes of this appeal, the court found that the Section 1985(2) claim fails on the merits. View "Raymond Kvalvog v. Park Christian School, Inc." on Justia Law

After an overnight stay at the Sheraton St. Paul Woodbury Hotel, Plaintiff sued the Schulte Hospitality Group, Inc. for discrimination and unfair reprisal. Plaintiff claimed he was locked out of the main entrance, greeted inhospitably, forced to provide proof of his Marriott-sponsored Bonvoy rewards program membership at check-in, assigned to a room with dirty bedding, required to bring it to the front desk to exchange for clean bedding, forced to change the bedding himself, and denied a request to switch rooms. The district court granted summary judgment to the Hotel because it provided unrebutted, non-pretextual justifications for its treatment of Plaintiff, and he did not show a causal link between his complaint of discrimination and the Hotel’s adverse actions. Plaintiff appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff failed to show that the Hotel’s reasons are pretextual. He has not provided sufficient probative evidence to support a finding that his treatment in the Hotel was so at variance with the treatment expected of premium hotels during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the Hotel on the MHRA discrimination claim. Further, the court wrote that because Plaintiff cannot show that the Hotel called the police to escort him out of the Hotel because of his complaints, he failed to satisfy the third element of a prima facie case of MHRA unfair reprisal: “that the adverse action was causally linked to the protected conduct.” View "Larry Johnson v. Schulte Hosp. Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff saw Defendant, an officer, pointing a firearm at her 12- and 14-year-old sons down the street from their family’s home. When Plaintiff approached to ask what happened, Defendant repeatedly ordered her to “get back.” After Plaintiff questioned the order, Defendant briefly pointed his taser at her. Plainitff then complied with his orders. Her sons were eventually cleared of any wrongdoing. Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action against Defendant, claiming he used excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant on the claim after concluding he was entitled to qualified immunity. Defendant appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant was placed in a position where he had two possibly armed suspects detained in front of him and a third unknown individual approaching from behind, creating a potentially serious safety risk. Adding to the circumstances, when Defendant ordered Plaintiff to “get back,” she moved to the side, but she did not immediately comply by moving backward. Rather, she questioned the order and moved sideways. Ordered to get back a second time, she again questioned the order and remained where she was until after the taser was drawn. Accordingly, the court wrote that under the totality of the circumstances, Defendant momentarily pointing his taser at Plaintiff to gain control of the scene was not unreasonable. View "Casondra Pollreis v. Lamont Marzolf" on Justia Law