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

After Gary Wenzel was shot and killed by a police officer, Wenzel's family filed suit against the officer, alleging a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for excessive force. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment based on the officer's claim of qualified immunity. The court held that, given the officer's knowledge of Wenzel's reputation of being aggressive and violent towards law enforcement officers, it was reasonable for the officer to believe that Wenzel posed an immediate threat of serious physical harm to him, notwithstanding the fact that the officer could see that Wenzel's hands were empty and the later-discovered fact that Wenzel was unarmed. In this case, a reasonable officer on the scene would have viewed Wenzel's indisputably aggressive approach as a precursor to a physical altercation, and the officer was required to make a split-second decision in an unpredictable and dangerous circumstance. View "Wenzel v. Storm" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to a state trooper based on qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that the trooper used excessive force. The court held that the trooper's use of force was not objectively reasonable under the circumstances. In this case, plaintiff was an unarmed, nonviolent offender who was not actively resisting or fleeing, but the trooper nonetheless lifted plaintiff off the ground and slammed his head into the floor, causing him to lose two teeth. The court held that a reasonable police officer would have known at the time of the incident that throwing a nonviolent, nonthreatening misdemeanant who was not actively resisting face first to the ground was not permissible use of force. View "Rokusek v. Jansen" on Justia Law

The Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) gatekeeper function against frivolous suits does not require a prison inmate to make a showing of a physical injury caused by an unconstitutional act. Rather, in the Eighth Amendment context, in order to recover compensatory damages, the PLRA requires a showing of harm caused by some unconstitutional conduct that amounted to deliberate indifference and an accompanying showing of physical injury.In this prisoner medical needs case, plaintiff appealed the district court's judgment awarding him only nominal and no punitive damages. The district court held that defendants violated plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while he was in their custody, but that the PLRA precluded plaintiff's recovery of compensatory damages because he failed to meet 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e)'s physical injury threshold.The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiff's severe pain resulted from an actual physical injury when an officer's takedown move broke his shoulder, and thus plaintiff met the PLRA's physical injury requirement under section 1997e(e). Therefore, the court reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to calculate compensatory damages that result from the pain differential, if any, that plaintiff experienced from having to take non-prescription pain relievers instead of the ten prescribed hydrocodone tablets. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying punitive damages. View "McAdoo v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to officers in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force. The court held that, accepting plaintiff's version of the events as true, the officers' use of force was objectively unreasonable. In this case, the officers suspected plaintiff of making a false statement, plaintiff was neither fleeing nor actively resisting arrest, plaintiff posed no threat to the security of the officers or the public, and the officers made the arrest by grabbing plaintiff by the throat and using a baton with sufficient force to break his arm. In regard to the unlawful arrest claim, the court also held that it was objectively unreasonable to believe that there was probable cause to arrest plaintiff where plaintiff's statement that his sister intentionally drove her car over his foot was not a false report justifying his arrest. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Michael v. Trevena" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief based on petitioner's claim that he is intellectually disabled. In this case, the district court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017), when it conducted its evidentiary hearing and issued its order. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to consider petitioner's claim in light of Moore. View "Jackson v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Union Pacific in an action brought by plaintiff under the Federal Railway Safety Act, alleging that he was terminated for engaging in a protected activity. The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable jury could not find that retaliation for his reporting of his workplace injury was a contributing factor to his separation from employment with Union Pacific. Rather, his employment ended because of his absenteeism and his inability to complete the steps necessary for reinstatement. The court also held that plaintiff did not provide proof by a preponderance of the evidence that his separation from employment with Union Pacific was the result of retaliation for his seeking medical treatment. View "Hess v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on his claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant, finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was justified under the circumstances. The district court relied on plaintiff's criminal conviction for assaulting defendant and on defendant's testimony.The court rejected plaintiff's argument that the court should create an evidentiary presumption at the summary judgment stage against an officer who fails to use audio or video recording equipment that he has been issued; the court recognized the unique evidentiary problem of a case involving the use of force in which only one side can tell the story, but declined to adopt such a radical solution; and, even construing the record in plaintiff's favor, defendant's use of force was objectively reasonable where plaintiff posed an immediate threat to defendant's safety and was actively resisting arrest. Consequently, plaintiff's state law claims also failed. View "Church v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief for petitioner, who received the death sentence after being convicted of murder and burglary. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that petitioner was not entitled to relief on this Fifth Amendment self-incrimination claim under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA); the state courts did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington in concluding that trial counsels' penalty phase efforts were not constitutionally deficient and the court need not address whether the state courts unreasonably concluded that there was no Strickland prejudice; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to stay the habeas proceedings and file a second amended petition; the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law applying the Ex Post Facto Clause by permitting the victim's mother to give impact evidence; the state court's decision to reject the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), did not apply was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; the jury found three valid aggravating circumstances that clearly encompassed the facts and circumstances supporting its additional depravity-of-mind finding; and the court denied the application to file a second or successive petition. View "Rhines v. Young" on Justia Law

On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in light of Minnesota Majority v. Mansky, 849 F.3d 749, 753 (8th Cir. 2017).Plaintiffs filed suit against the Minnesota Secretary of State and others, challenging a statute prohibiting the wearing of political insignia at a polling place, Minnesota Statute 211B.11. This court reversed the dismissal of defendants' as-applied First Amendment claim. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and this court affirmed. The Supreme Court then reversed and remanded, holding that the statute violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate at an Arkansas prison, filed suit against three prison officials for requiring him to work with deadly chlorine gas without proper training and safety gear. The district court granted summary judgment to the officials based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The Eighth Circuit, accepting plaintiff's declaration as true, held that Defendant Perry misled plaintiff and thus the formal grievance procedure was unavailable to plaintiff. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's judgment as to Defendant Murphy where plaintiff did not file his formal grievance in time. In regard to Defendant Romine and White, the court held that the informal complaint process was capable of use and could have provided some relief and thus the administrative exhaustion requirement applied regardless of whether the formal grievance procedure was later available to plaintiff. In the alternative, plaintiff failed to exhaust his remedies against Romine and White. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment as to these two defendants. View "Townsend v. Murphy" on Justia Law