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

The Constitution does not imply a cause of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), if a federal law-enforcement officer lies, manipulates witnesses, and falsifies evidence. In this case, the allegations were that a federally deputized officer duped prosecutors and a grand jury into believing that plaintiffs were part of a multistate sex-trafficking conspiracy.The Eighth Circuit declined to extend Bivens and remanded with respect to the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against defendant for the district court to consider the applicability of section 1983 in the first instance. In regard to the unlawful arrest claim, the court held that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity because her actions constituted a violation of a clearly established right. In this case, a reasonable officer would know that deliberately misleading another officer into arresting an innocent individual to protect a sham investigation was unlawful, regardless of the difficulties presented by the case. View "Farah v. Weyker" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging that they violated her son's constitutional rights when two officers used deadly force against him. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, holding that there was no potentially admissible evidence in the record supporting plaintiff's allegations that the decedent was unarmed, did not point his gun at officers, and did not shoot at an officer. The court also held that the district court correctly ruled that the officers were reasonable in using deadly force. Therefore, the district court properly rejected the assault, battery, and wrongful death claims, as well as properly dismissed the Monell claim. Finally, because the individual officers fulfilled their constitutional obligations, the Board and the Police Chief cannot be liable for failing to train them. View "Smith v. Kilgore" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims of excessive force, as well as failure to train and supervise. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officer on the excessive force claim based on qualified immunity, holding that a reasonable officer could have believed plaintiff was resisting arrest and posed a threat to his safety. In this case, the officer faced a tense and unpredictable situation where he was the only officer on the scene with two hostile intoxicated individuals. Furthermore, the amount of force the officer used was objectively reasonable when he employed an arm-bar takedown to restrain and handcuff plaintiff. View "Fischer v. Hoven" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to a state trooper, in an action brought by plaintiff alleging claims of First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure. The trooper arrested plaintiff for disorderly conduct after plaintiff yelled a two-word expletive at him from a moving vehicle. The trooper believed the shout constituted unreasonable or excessive noise in violation of state law.The court held that the trooper lacked even arguable probable cause for an arrest and thus violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. In this case, plaintiff's conduct may have been offensive, but it was not an unreasonable or excessive noise. The court also held that the district court did not err as to the First Amendment retaliation claim where the trooper had neither probable cause nor arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff, because plaintiff's profane shout was protected activity and the arrest was an action that would chill continued activity by a person of ordinary firmness. View "Thurairajah v. Hollenbeck" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of Bel-Nor's Ordinance 983, which restricts the number of signs displayed on private property. The court held that Ordinance 983 is a content based restriction that is not narrowly-tailored to achieve the compelling government interests of government safety and aesthetics. The court held that the ordinance is also facially overbroad; plaintiff was likely to succeed on his First Amendment claim; and the district court erred in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Willson v. City of Bel-Nor" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner, who was convicted of four counts of capital murder and sentenced to death on each count. The court held that trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence related to petitioner's childhood abuse, fetal-alcohol exposure, and post-traumatic stress disorder. In this case, counsel satisfied his obligation under Strickland v. Washington and his decision not to interview distant family members was reasonable. Counsel conducted a thorough investigation and reasonably decided to pursue a theory of imperfect self-defense. Furthermore, counsel's decision to hire an expert to evaluate the effect of petitioner's abusive childhood on his mental health was reasonable in the circumstances and counsel did not fail to act while potentially powerful mitigating evidence stared him in the face. View "Kemp v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed police officers' interlocutory appeal of the district court's order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as common law rights. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the officers' appeal because there were questions of material fact as to plaintiff's consent, whether the seizure of Syn incense was in plain view, and whether the administrative search exception applied to a warrantless search in 2012. View "Riggs v. Gibbs" on Justia Law

FTN filed suit against the City, alleging that its indecent exposure ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City and held that Ways v. City of Lincoln, 331 F.3d 596 (8th Cir. 2003) was controlling in this case. In Ways, this court upheld an ordinance prohibiting the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering on any part of the areola and nipple against an equal protection challenge. In this case, like in Ways, the City's ordinance was substantially related to its important governmental interests in promoting public decency and proscribing public nudity to protect morals, public order, health, and safety. View "Free the Nipple - Springfield Residents Promoting Equality v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that five Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP) employees were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs. While plaintiff was serving a life sentence at ISP, he suffered a serious hip injury from an assault by a fellow inmate.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider plaintiff's request for substitute appointed counsel. In this case, appointed counsel did not withdraw, and there was no request for substitute counsel. Furthermore, there was no basis in the summary judgment record to suspect that appointment of new counsel would affect the district court's decision. The court also held that there was no evidence in the record that the treating physician or any other medical provider or prison staff provided substandard care and no evidence that defendants ever acted in deliberate disregard of plaintiff's serious medical needs. View "Cejvanovic v. Ludwick" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who uses a wheelchair, filed suit against a restaurant owner and the owner of real property where the restaurant is located, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court dismissed the complaint as moot after the owners made changes to the accessibility of the parking lot.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, because plaintiff lacked standing to sue over alleged deficiencies in the overflow lot. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint to add alleged violations inside the restaurant. The court modified the judgment to dismiss the ADA claims without prejudice. View "Davis v. Morris-Walker, LTD" on Justia Law