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

Moore-Jones passed Arkansas State Trooper Quick’s marked police car. Quick checked and found her registration was expired and began a traffic stop, which was recorded on his dash-cam. Quick pulled behind Moore-Jones, activating his emergency lights, spotlight, and sirens at 8:23 p.m. She decelerated and pulled onto the shoulder, which was narrow and unlit. She returned to the road, accelerating to 35-38 MPH, her speed for the rest of the pursuit. The posted speed limit was 55 MPH. At 8:24, she continued past the last exit before the nearest city. After the exit, Quick began a Precision Immobilization Technique (PIT) maneuver, striking Moore-Jones's right-rear fender with his left-front bumper, causing her car to spin into a ditch, hitting a cement culvert. Moore-Jones and her child and were treated and released at a hospital. She was cited for expired tags and failure to yield to an emergency vehicle, both misdemeanors. She sued Quick for excessive force and assault and battery. The Eighth Circuit held that Quick is entitled to qualified immunity. The right to be free from a PIT maneuver in these circumstances was not sufficiently definite. From a reasonable officer’s perspective, Moore-Jones refused to comply with commands to pull over. At the time, Quick was justified in using some force to secure compliance. View "Moore-Jones v. Quick" on Justia Law

Henderson, a 19-year-old black man, was attending a party at a Woodbury, Minnesota Red Roof Inn. Without warning, another young black male, Ballinger, pulled a gun, robbed the other guests, including Mark, and held them hostage. A woman called 911 and then hid her phone. Though the caller was unable to speak with the operator, the operator kept the line open and listened; the operator discerned an apparent confrontation between someone with a gun and another person with a knife. The person with the gun (Ballinger) demanded that the person with the knife (Henderson) give it up. The dispatcher alerted police. During the response, which involved Henderson trying to escape the hotel room while Ballinger fired shots, Henderson was shot by three officers who fired 17 rounds while he was lying on the ground. Henderson died. The district court rejected, on summary judgment, claims by his estate under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Eighth Circuit reversed. The resolution of the conflicting testimony between one officer's more or less contemporaneous statement to investigators and all of the officers' subsequent unified deposition testimony should be left to a jury; the district court erred in finding the defendants entitled to qualified immunity. View "Henderson v. City of Woodbury" on Justia Law

In 2001, Nelson pled guilty to the kidnapping and unlawful interstate transportation of Pamela for the purpose of sexual abuse which resulted in her death. The government dropped a charge traveling across state lines with the intent to engage in a sex act with a female under the age of 12 which resulted in death. Days later, Nelson attempted suicide by ingesting prescription medicine. The penalty phase jury returned a death penalty verdict. The court allowed Nelson to address the court. Nelson, showing no remorse, blistered the court and the victim’s family with a profanity-laden tirade. The court imposed the death sentence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court denied certiorari. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the rejection of Nelson’s 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The jury heard substantial mitigating evidence and there was no reasonable probability that its death sentence verdict would have been different if the evidence produced at the habeas evidentiary hearing had been introduced during the penalty phase, so the district court did not err in denying Nelson's ineffective assistance of counsel claims concerning failure to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation, failure to adequately investigate his mental health and failure to advise Nelson to decline to submit to a mental health exam by a government examiner. View "Nelson v. United States" on Justia Law

Missouri inmate Barr filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that state-contracted health care providers violated the Eighth Amendment when they stopped administering his multiple sclerosis medication. Barr’s medical record indicated that he was being followed “for high suspicion of multiple sclerosis” but had discontinued taking Avonex “on his own due to undesirable side effects.” The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. While inmates have a right to adequate medical care, they have no right to receive a particular or requested course of treatment. Defendants’ decision to halt Barr’s Avonex injections did not rise to a level akin to criminal recklessness and was probably not even negligent. Even if Barr did not refuse his injections, Defendants had good reason to end them. Three different health care providers wrote in Barr’s medical record that he had complained to them about side effects; it was well within Defendants’ independent medical judgment to stop administering Avonex. Barr does not allege that any harm occurred after the injections ended. After Barr’s injections were halted, Defendants continued to provide medical care—prescribing other medication, scheduling follow-ups, and requesting additional diagnostic tests. No rational trier of fact could find that Defendants were deliberately indifferent. View "Barr v. Pearson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that a county deputy was deliberately indifferent to Jeffry Alan Barton's serious medical needs and that the county jail administrator failed to adequately train or supervise the deputy. Plaintiff also alleged that the county did not adequately train its detention facility workers and that its policies failed to ensure that detainees received adequate medical care.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to the deputy where a jury could find that Barton was experiencing a medical need so obvious that a layperson would recognize the need for prompt medical attention, the deputy did not perform the healthcare screening the jail policies required, and it was clearly established at the time that booking Barton into jail would constitute deliberate indifference. The court reversed the denial of qualified immunity to the administrator and held that the administrator did not know that the deputy was inadequately trained or supervised. Finally, the court dismissed the county's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Barton v. Ledbetter" on Justia Law

The EEOC filed suit alleging that North Memorial violated 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a), by unlawfully retaliating against an employee. The district court granted summary judgment for North Memorial and dismissed the claim, concluding that North Memorial did not violate section 2000e-3(a) because it did not discriminate against the employee.The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that the EEOC failed to establish a prima facie case of opposition-clause unlawful retaliation because merely requesting a religious accommodation was not the same as opposing the allegedly unlawful denial of a religious accommodation. The court reasoned that, when an employee or applicant requested a religious accommodation, and the request was denied by an employer such as North Memorial that accommodated reasonable requests that did not cause undue hardship, there was no basis for an opposition-clause retaliation claim under Sec. 2000e-3(a). The court held that the employee or applicant's exclusive Title VII remedy was an unlawful disparate treatment or disparate impact claim under section 2000e-2(a)(1). View "EEOC v. North Memorial Health Care" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Saint Luke's in an employment discrimination action. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to reconsider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). The court explained that, although defendant's delay was brief, Saint Luke's made no claim of prejudice and defendant did not act in bad faith, such factors did not outweigh defendant's carelessness or mistake in construing the rules and the absence of any apparent meritorious defense. Furthermore, there were no exceptional circumstances in this case that warranted relief under Rule 60(b)(6). View "Giles v. St Luke's Northland-Smithville" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 where petitioner was convicted of two counts of first-degree rape and two counts of sexual contact with a child under the age of 16. The court held that petitioner failed to exhaust his remedies in regard to his claim that admission of a video of the victim implicated his rights under the Confrontation Clause; petitioner also failed to raise the Confrontation Clause issue before the district court; and the evidence at trial, including the video, provided an adequate basis for conviction. View "Brende v. Young" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants after plaintiff's son, Michael, was killed by cardiac arrhythmia after an altercation with officers in the setting of acute methamphetamine intoxication. When officers responded to a domestic disturbance call, they found Michael brutally attacking his girlfriend.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, holding that unsworn statements from paramedics to law enforcement were properly excluded and the district properly disregarded them; Iowa's false statement statute did not implicitly swear a declarant making a statement to law enforcement; there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Michael posed a threat to the safety of the officers and the victim and no competent, admissible evidence rebutted the officers' version of the events; because there was no constitutional violation, the court need not consider whether the rights at issue were clearly established. The court also affirmed the district court's decision not to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. View "Zubrod v. Hoch" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for DCDC in an action alleging claims of gender, age, and disability discrimination under state and federal civil rights laws. Plaintiff, a 56 year old woman, worked as a correctional officer until she was injured in inmate altercations. After plaintiff worked the maximum allowable number of days of light duty pursuant to the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), she was terminated when no other suitable position was found.The court held that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination; plaintiff's prima facie evidence of bad faith supporting her claim of failure to accommodate/disability was rebutted by the incontrovertible evidence that plaintiff could not have been reasonably accommodated; and plaintiff's age discrimination claim failed because she did not produce evidence of a similarly situated younger person who was treated differently. View "Faulkner v. Douglas County" on Justia Law