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

In 2016, plaintiff filed a pro se damages action asserting equal protection and First Amendment claims arising out of his grievances stemming from his transfer to FPC Yankton where he was denied permission to possess an aviation manual he had been allowed to have at his prior correction facility. The district court dismissed all but one claim asserting that plaintiff's First Amendment rights were violated when an FPC Yankton Correctional Counselor retaliated against him for filing grievances by denying him prison grievance forms. The district court interpreted the action as one brought against the counselor under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and granted summary judgment, concluding that a Bivens remedy should not be implied for retaliatory denials of administrative remedies.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to prove an essential element of a First Amendment retaliation claim -- that denial of a few grievance forms would chill an inmate of ordinary firmness from filing future grievances. In this case, the record establishes that the BOP's flexible four-step process allowed plaintiff to have his initial grievance decided on the merits and then to submit a second grievance that initially bypassed the informal resolution step, which was also decided on the merits. Furthermore, there is no evidence that other inmates would not be granted comparable procedural access to BOP administrative grievance remedies. View "Gonzalez v. Bendt" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to police officers and the city in an action alleging claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Minnesota state law after officers entered plaintiff's home without a warrant, seized her, and transported her to a hospital for a mental health evaluation.The court held that the officers acted reasonably when entering plaintiff's home and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers on plaintiff's warrantless entry claim. In this case, the warrantless search entry was justified by a reasonable belief there was a mental health concern and an emergency requiring attention. Furthermore, once inside the home, the officers did not expand the scope of their search. The court also held that the district court did not err in granting the officers qualified immunity on plaintiff's unreasonable seizure claim, because the probable cause standard was not clearly established and, as a result, a reasonable officer could have believed the decision to arrest plaintiff for an emergency mental health evaluation was lawful.However, the court now explicitly states that only probable cause that a person poses an emergent danger—that is, one calling for prompt action—to herself or others can tip the scales of the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness balancing test in favor of the government when it arrests an individual for a mental health evaluation because only probable cause constitutes a sufficient "governmental interest" to outweigh a person's "interest in freedom." Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in granting the officers summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliatory arrest claim; the district court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of the city on plaintiff's Monell claims; and the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to the officers on her state-law claims of false imprisonment, battery, assault, and negligence. View "Graham v. Barnette" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to officers in an 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that the officers used excessive force against plaintiff after he led them on a high speed chase. In this case, the taser logs recorded that plaintiff was tased twice.In regard to the first tasing, where defendant admitted that he was not yet handcuffed, the court held under its precedent that it is reasonable for an officer to tase an uncuffed suspect who appears to be resisting arrest. In regard to the second tasing, the court held that the use of the taser in drive-stun mode was reasonable under the circumstances where there was a "tumultuous" struggle between plaintiff and the deputies. Furthermore, it makes no difference if one of the officers knew that plaintiff had a preexisting shoulder condition that made it difficult for him to comply with their commands. Therefore, if Deputy Dolleslager did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights, then neither did Deputy Lubben by failing to intervene. The court also held that Deputy Tierney did not violate a clearly established right where plaintiff alleged that the officer used his knee as a weapon, the officers argued that no one's knee touched plaintiff's head, and a dash-cam video is equivocal at best. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. View "McManemy v. Tierney" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action seeking both a declaration that the State of Missouri's grand jury secrecy laws are an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech as applied to her and an injunction preventing their enforcement. Plaintiff was a grand juror serving on the grand jury that considered whether to bring criminal charges against a former police officer in the death of Michael Brown.The court explained that it need not settle whether plaintiff's proposed speech is covered by the First Amendment or whether plaintiff waived her speech rights by swearing an oath to keep grand jury matters secret. The court held that, because Missouri's grand jury secrecy laws survive even the most exacting scrutiny, plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. As applied to plaintiff, the court held that section 540.320 of the Missouri Revised Statutes is narrowly tailored to serve Missouri's compelling interest in preserving the functioning of its grand jury system. View "Grand Juror Doe v. Bell" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of four state laws that regulate abortion: the Arkansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, the Sex Discrimination by Abortion Prohibition Act, an amendment concerning the disposition of fetal remains, and an amendment concerning the maintenance of forensic samples from abortions performed on a child. On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in June Medical Services L. L. C. v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020), holding unconstitutional a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded for reconsideration in light of Chief Justice Roberts's separate opinion in June Medical, which is controlling, as well as the Supreme Court's decision in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc., 139 S. Ct. 1780 (2019) (per curiam). View "Hopkins v. Jegley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against two police officers, alleging claims of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff's claims arose from the officers' response from a caller regarding two highly intoxicated individuals walking around a residential neighborhood knocking on doors.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Smith based on qualified immunity, holding that the undisputed evidence in the record established that it was reasonable for Officer Smith to approach plaintiff as a potential suspect in an assault investigation who posed a threat to officer safety; Officer Smith's arm-bar takedown and later push into the ground did not rise to the level of unreasonable uses of force; and Officer Smith's use of the taser did not violate a clearly established right where a reasonable officer in Smith's position could have perceived plaintiff to be resisting arrest and could have feared for his safety. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sergeant Stoler based on qualified immunity, holding that Sergeant Stoler's movement of plaintiff from the back of the squad car after plaintiff was tangled up in his handcuffs, an at least passively resisting suspect, was not gratuitous or unnecessarily violent. View "Kohorst v. Smith" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Arkansas prisoners who are or were on death row for capital murder convictions, filed suit alleging that Arkansas' method of execution violated the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs served subpoenas on several state correctional departments, seeking information about the existence of known and available alternatives that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain. NDCS objected and asserted that the subpoena violated Nebraska's right to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.In In Re Missouri Dep't of Nat. Res., 105 F.3d 434 (8th Cir. 1997), the Eighth Circuit stated that there is no authority for the position that the Eleventh Amendment shields government entities from discovery in federal court. Therefore, the district court properly determined that Missouri DNR disposes of the sovereign immunity issue. Although Missouri DNR involved a petition for a writ of mandamus, the court found that the breadth of the decision controlling and applicable in this de novo review context as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "McGehee v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against O.J.'s Cafe under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that the slopes in the restaurant's parking lot deprived him of full and equal enjoyment of the facility. The restaurant made improvements to the lot and then the district court dismissed plaintiff's claims as moot.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that there was no ongoing injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. In this case, the district court found that any excess slopes in the parking lot were located in areas that would not interfere with plaintiff's access to the restaurant and this finding is supported by the record. View "Hillesheim v. O.J.'s Cafe, Inc." on Justia Law

After Mark Ivey died while in jail, Mark's father (plaintiff) filed suit under Missouri's wrongful death statute against three jail employees under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims of deliberate indifference to Mark's serious medical needs. Plaintiff also filed suit against the county on the ground that its failure to train the officers caused Mark's death. The coroner ruled that Mark's cause of death was acute asthma exacerbation. The district court denied summary judgment as to all defendants.The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the officers did not violate clearly established law and are entitled to qualified immunity. The court held that the officers here faced a materially different situation than in McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2009). In this case, Mark was conscious and able to communicate; he told the officers that he did not want medical assistance and raised various complaints to the nurse who checked on him; and, even assuming the officers knew Mark had asthma or was withdrawing from drugs, the record shows Mark affirmatively declined their offers to assist him with those difficulties. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the county's appeal where the question of whether it is liable for failing to train its officers is not inextricably intertwined with the matter of qualified immunity. View "Ivey v. Audrain County" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of one count of first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder. In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a list of basic rules for spectators at trial and required spectators to show photographic identification before being allowed entry into the courtroom. On direct appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected petitioner's argument that the identification requirement violated his Sixth Amendment public right to trial.The court held that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision -- that no closure occurred because there was no evidence that the requirement was enforced -- is both contrary to and an unreasonable application of Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984), and Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (per curiam). Finally, the court declined to exercise its discretion by expanding the certificate of appealability. View "Taylor v. Dayton" on Justia Law