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

After the school districts sought modification of existing desegregation consent decrees to allow their exemption from Arkansas's Public School Choice Act, Ark. Code. Ann. 6–18–1906, the district court granted the motions and modified the consent decrees to explicitly limit the transfer of students between school districts. The Department appealed, alleging that the modification imposed an impermissible interdistrict remedy.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that there was a substantial change in Arkansas law after the consent decrees were enacted and the district court's modification was not an impermissible interdistrict remedy. The court explained that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering and crediting evidence of white flight when it determined that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred warranting modification of the consent decrees. Furthermore, based on the court's review of the record and the large degree of deference given to the district court, the court could not find that the district court abused its discretion in modifying the consent decrees. View "United States v. Arkansas Department of Education" on Justia Law

Dat was born in a Kenyan refugee camp in 1993. Admitted to the U.S. around 1994, he became a lawful permanent resident. Dat pled guilty to robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951, and was sentenced to 78 months' imprisonment. Dat’s robbery conviction is a deportable offense, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Dat moved to vacate his guilty plea, claiming that his attorney, Allen, assured him that his immigration status would not be affected by his plea. Allen testified that she repeatedly told Dat the charges were “deportable offenses,” that she never told him, his mother, or his fiancée that he would not be deported. that she encouraged Dat to hire an immigration attorney, and that they reviewed the Plea Petition, which says that non-citizens would be permanently removed from the U.S. if found guilty of most felony offenses. The Plea Agreement refers to immigration consequences. Dat and Allen also reviewed the PSR, which stated that immigration proceedings would commence after his release from custody.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, finding that Dat was not denied effective assistance of counsel. It was objectively reasonable for Allen to tell Dat that he “could” face immigration ramifications that “could” result in deportation. An alien with a deportable conviction may still seek “relief from removal. These “immigration law complexities” should caution any defense attorney not to advise a defendant considering a guilty plea that the result of a post-conviction, contested removal proceeding is certain. View "Dat v. United States" on Justia Law

After Cassandra Braun was killed in a high-speed police pursuit of a speeding vehicle, her mother filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging constitutional violations against the officer involved in the accident and his supervisor.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, holding that the officer believed he was responding to an emergency, triggering the intent-to-harm standard. In this case, plaintiff failed to argue, much less present any evidence, that the officer intended to harm anyone. Therefore, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the officer on plaintiff's substantive due process claim because she failed to establish a constitutional violation. Furthermore, the district court also rightly granted summary judgment for the supervisor where plaintiff's failure-to-train-or-supervise claim requires an underlying constitutional violation. View "Braun v. Burke" on Justia Law

After officers from the Cedar Rapids Police Department shot and killed Jonathan Gossman during an altercation after stopping his vehicle to investigate possible drug crimes, Gossman's relatives filed suit against officers and the city, alleging various federal and state law claims under the United States Constitution, the Iowa Constitution, and Iowa tort law.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officers and the city, holding that, collectively, the officers' observations were enough to support the belief that criminal activity might have been afoot; the officers' first attempt to detain Gossman was also supported by reasonable suspicion; an officer's decision to release his canine to subdue the struggling Gossman and keep him from leaving was not unreasonable; police reasonably believed that Gossman posed a serious threat to their safety when he drew a gun; and the officers' use of deadly force was justified and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the district court properly disposed of the state law assault and false arrest claims. View "McElree v. City of Cedar Rapids" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant, a police officer, alleging civil rights claims related to her conduct during an investigation into an alleged interstate sex-trafficking scheme. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that defendant violated their Fourth Amendment rights by submitting a false affidavit causing their arrest. The district court concluded that plaintiffs may proceed on both a Bivens claim and a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983.The Eighth Circuit concluded that this case is meaningfully different from a Bivens action in four ways: first, the sorts of actions being challenged here are different; second, defendant's role in the arrests was different; third, although the mechanism for inquiry is a closer call, there is still one meaningful difference; and fourth, proving these claims would require a different type of showing. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded to the district court to dismiss plaintiffs' Bivens claims and to determine whether their case can proceed under section 1983. View "Ahmed v. Weyker" on Justia Law

Dassault hired Gipson in 2004; he was promoted in 2006. In 2011, Gipson received a poor evaluation from his supervisor. Gipson complained to HR about his supervisor. Later, Gipson and his supervisor had an argument which ended with security escorting Gipson to HR. Gipson filed an EEOC charge but did not sue. Dassault assigned Gipson a different supervisor. In 2012, Gipson reported to HR a racially offensive email sent by a colleague. The sender was suspended. In 2013, Gipson’s team leader resigned. Gipson assumed some team leader duties. Dassault claims that Gipson was not given “personnel/ supervisor responsibilities.” In 2014, Dassault promoted Gipson to senior manufacturing engineer. Months later Dassault posted an open team leader position. Gipson applied but HR responded that he was not qualified because he had not served as a senior manufacturing engineer for at least 12 months. His application was never forwarded to the decision-makers. Another African-American was selected for the promotion.Gipson claimed that he did not receive the promotion because of his race and because he filed a 2011 EEOC complaint. Dassault later terminated Gipson’s employment as part of a reduction in force. Gipson contends that two Caucasian senior manufacturing engineers, who he alleges had less seniority than him, were offered voluntary demotions in lieu of termination. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Dassault on claims under Title VII (42 U.S.C. 2000e), 42 U.S.C. 1981, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. View "Gipson v. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the District and three individual school officials in an action brought by a student, alleging claims of sexual abuse and harassment by a teacher and coach, Johnna Feazell.Where, as here, a complaint involves allegations against school officials brought under both Title IX and 42 U.S.C. 1983, this court has held that an official in these circumstances must have actual notice of the alleged sexual harassment or sexual abuse by a school employee to meet the standard for liability. In this case, a searching review of the summary judgment record reveals no evidence to indicate school officials had actual notice of sexual harassment or abuse by Feazell prior to the events at issue. Rather, when plaintiff's mother met with the school principal with the cell phone containing text messages evidencing a sexual relationship between plaintiff and Feazell, school officials took immediate action by contacting law enforcement and placing Feazell on administrative leave. Therefore, the district court did not improperly weigh the evidence and the summary judgment record established that no genuine dispute exists as to whether the District or any school official had actual notice of sexual abuse or harassment prior to October 13, 2014. View "KC v. Mayo" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of plaintiff's 28 U.S.C. 2254 motion for habeas relief based on the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. Defendant was convicted of aggravated residential burglary, aggravated assault on a family or household member, and first-degree terroristic threatening.The court held that plaintiff clearly and unequivocally invoked his right to self-representation; as soon as he manifested this clear and unequivocal invocation, the proceedings should have paused, and the trial court should have conducted a proper Faretta hearing; and thus the Arkansas Supreme Court's finding to the contrary was an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law. The court also held that the record does not support a finding that plaintiff engaged in serious and obstructionist misconduct, and the Arkansas Supreme Court's finding to the contrary is objectively unreasonable. In this case, there is no evidence in the record that defendant was attempting to manipulate, subvert, or delay the trial process. Finally, the state waived its argument that there was a determination that plaintiff was incapable, under Faretta, of waiving his right to counsel. View "Finch v. Payne" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was found to have violated the University's policies prohibiting sexual harassment and stalking on the basis of sex, and was suspended for two years, he filed suit against the Curators of the University and four individual Title IX investigators.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to compel and the district court's discovery ruling did not prevent plaintiff from adequately opposing defendants' motion for summary judgment; summary judgment on the Title VI claim was appropriate because plaintiff failed to present evidence that his proffered comparators, including the two white students mentioned, were graduate students and thus similarly situated to him in all relevant respects; summary judgment on plaintiff's void for vagueness claim was appropriate because the University's policies provide adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited and the individual defendant's inability to agree on the exact scope of prohibited conduct or the definition of words in the policies does not mean the policies are subject to arbitrary enforcement; summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim was appropriate in its entirety; dismissal of the substantial overbreadth claim was appropriate where plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the University's policies against sexual harassment and stalking have a real and substantial effect on protected speech; dismissal of the sex discrimination under Title IX claim was appropriate where the complaint fails to plausibly allege that the investigation reached an outcome against the weight of the evidence or allege any additional facts suggesting bias based on his sex; and dismissal of the discrimination claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) were appropriate where plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for sex discrimination for reasons similar to his Title IX claims. Finally, although the court believed that it was error for the district court to dismiss the state law race discrimination claim, the error was harmless in light of the court's conclusion. View "Rowles v. Curators of the University of Missouri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a police officer, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 based on the police department's investigation of him after it received allegations that plaintiff had purchased illegal steroids and interfered with a department investigation. In this case, defendant's home, police locker, police cruiser, and wife's vehicle were searched. Furthermore, his blood and urine were taken and analyzed.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim that Sergeant Koepke had unlawfully detained plaintiff in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights where, taken together, the facts do not establish that Koepke lacked sufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion that plaintiff might be involved in criminal activity. Therefore, Koepke was entitled to qualified immunity. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims that Koepke had unlawfully arrested plaintiff where Koepke was entitled to qualified immunity because the length of plaintiff's detention was not unreasonable under the circumstances. The court also affirmed summary judgment based on qualified immunity for Captain Peterson and Legal Advisor Peters and concluded that any omitted material facts from their warrant application was immaterial. Finally, the court affirmed summary judgment based on qualified immunity to Sergeant Reynolds where Reynold's search of plaintiff's wife's vehicle, which was not the vehicle identified in the search warrant, was authorized under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. View "Cronin v. Peterson" on Justia Law