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

Petitioner sought a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 and concurrently sought a stay of execution. The district court entered an order granting the motion for stay of execution on the basis that it required more time to consider the merits of petitioner's claims.The Eighth Circuit questioned the applicability of the authorities the district court relied on to enter a stay solely on the basis of time constraints that purportedly prevented even a preliminary consideration of the merits of the two issues petitioner has raised to determine whether he has a significant likelihood of succeeding on either of them. Accordingly, the court vacated the stay of execution and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition for habeas corpus relief, because the court saw no possibility of success on the merits of either of petitioner's competency claim and actual innocence claim. View "Barton v. Warden Stange" on Justia Law

After an ATF agent shot and killed Myron Pollard during an undercover operation, Pollard's mother and personal representative of his estate filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and the agent under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court held in favor of the United States and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the agent.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment on the FTCA claim, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to draw a negative inference from deleted data against the United States. In this case, the district court's finding that the ATF did not act in bad faith in destroying the original records of the shooting is supported by evidence, and plaintiff proffered no evidence to support an inference that the original recordings were intentionally destroyed to suppress the truth or to contradict any of the government's evidence. The court also held that, in light of the facts, the district court properly determined that the agent reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself and the other agents from the vehicle and that he had acted reasonably by firing his service weapon. The court held that the FTCA judgment barred plaintiff's Bivens action and remanded to the district court with directions to vacate the judgment for the agent on the Bivens claim and to dismiss the claim. View "White v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ozark in an action brought by plaintiff under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (ACRA).The court assumed without deciding that plaintiff satisfied her burden at step one of the McDonnell Douglas framework in establishing a prima facie case of age and sex discrimination, and held that Ozark articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination. In this case, Ozark satisfied its burden by presenting evidence that the decisionmaker terminated plaintiff because of her "rudeness and insubordination which culminated in a meeting in which she behaved abominably." Finally, plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding pretext. The court also held that the fact that plaintiff's successor is male and twenty-two years younger than her cannot, by itself, create an inference that plaintiff was terminated based on her sex and age. View "Main v. Ozark Health, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner based on his claim that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial when it briefly closed the courtroom to spectators. The district court denied relief based on the ground that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.The court agreed and held that it was not objectively unreasonable for the Minnesota Supreme Court to deem it constitutional under the Sixth Amendment for the trial court to explain the parameters of an earlier public order on evidentiary issues in a brief nonpublic proceeding before the jury was sworn. View "Smith v. Titus" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was removed from the Board of Trustees of Drake University, he filed suit alleging Title IX retaliation, disability retaliation, and breach of contract. Plaintiff's removal stemmed from conflicts of interests following the University's findings that plaintiff's son was responsible for alleged sexual misconduct and expelled from the University.The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiff's removal from the Board cannot support a Title IX retaliation claim against the University. In this case, the Board was acting in a manner separate and distinct from the University itself and thus plaintiff cannot hold the University liable under Title IX for the separate decision of the Board regarding its own internal affairs. The court also held that plaintiff's claim that the University retaliated against him by prohibiting him from serving as his son's advocate during the campus hearings failed, where, at no time did the son request that his father serve as his personal representative under the Code of Conduct and that such request was denied. Furthermore, without a nexus, plaintiff's claim of Title IX retaliation by the University failed. The court held that none of the actions plaintiff alleges the University took against him in retaliation were part of an education program or activity, and therefore he lacks standing to bring suit under 20 U.S.C. 1681(a). The court declined to expand Title IX's reach.The court held that plaintiff's disability retaliation claim failed because the Board voted to remove plaintiff due to his pervasive conflict of interest with the University and only after plaintiff refused to take a leave of absence from the Board. Finally, the court held that plaintiff's contract claim failed because plaintiff served on the Board as an unpaid, uncompensated volunteer. View "Rossley v. Drake University" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against ISC, alleging that ISC transported plaintiff, a pretrial detainee subject to extradition, for eight continuous days across twelve states, with only momentary breaks for bathroom use.The Eighth Circuit held that ISC is not entitled to summary judgment on the current record based on the standards applicable to pretrial detainees under Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). In this case, prior to being found guilty of any offense, plaintiff was subjected to painful, unsanitary, and severe conditions and restraints for over one week. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the court held that the conditions of plaintiff's confinement were far from de minimis and a jury could reasonably conclude that, on this record, the conditions were arbitrary or excessive when compared to the government's perceived goal of securely transporting plaintiff to his destination. View "Stearns v. Inmate Services Corp." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the school district's motion to dismiss in part and motion for summary judgment in an action brought under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees as time barred by the 90-day statute of limitations in Arkansas Code section 6-41-216(g), Arkansas's statutory framework for IDEA compliance. The court explained that the claim for attorneys' fees is ancillary to judicial review of the administrative decision. The court also held that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to the school district where there is no genuine issue of material fact about whether the school district acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment with respect to plaintiffs' claim that their son was the victim of peer and teacher bullying. View "Richardson v. Omaha School District" on Justia Law

After Cody Franklin died in police custody, his father, as administrator of his estate, sued the police officers who struggled with Franklin the night he died, and against the municipalities who employed them. The elder Franklin asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for excessive force, and claims under state law for battery and wrongful death. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the municipalities and all but two of the officers. Those officers filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity on all claims. After review, the Eighth Circuit agreed with the officers with respect to the federal claims, and remanded. With respect to the state claims, the Court remanded for further proceedings, including a determination whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. View "Franklin v. Franklin County, Arkansas" on Justia Law

Iowa inmate Napolean-Ahmed Mbonyunkiza was a practicing Muslim whose religious beliefs forbade consumption of pork or pork by-products. In 2017, he filed four separate grievances against the Newton Correctional Facility claiming he had eaten or was served food containing pork. Unsatisfied with the outcome of the grievances, Mbonyunkiza filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in federal district court, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the correctional facility. The Eighth Circuit, reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo, concluded Mbonyunkiza failed to show defendants deprived him of a constitutional right and therefore affirmed. View "Mbonyunkiza v. Beasely" on Justia Law

Based on a report by the burglary victim, Goffin’s uncle, Officer Ashcraft tried to arrest Goffin for burglary and stealing handguns, bullets, and prescription pain medication. Before the arrest, several witnesses told Ashcraft that Goffin was armed, possibly intoxicated, and dangerous. When Goffin broke free from arrest, fled toward a group of bystanders, and moved as though he was reaching into his waistband, Ashcraft shot him once in the back. Goffin claims (and Ashcraft disputes) that he was patted down by another officer (Hines) just before he fled. The pat-down removed nothing from Goffin; the officer failed to discover that Goffin was carrying a loaded magazine and extra bullets. Officer Hines claims that Goffin fled before he completed the pat-down. Stolen guns were discovered within reach of where Goffin had been sitting in acar, but Goffin did not have a weapon on him. In Goffin’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Officer Ashcraft is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the shooting that a pat-down that removes nothing from a suspect eliminates an officer’s probable cause that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm. View "Goffin v. Ashcraft" on Justia Law