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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action brought by plaintiff after he was terminated as an employee of the Arkansas State Treasurer. The court held that plaintiff's initial argument regarding his defamation, false light, and invasion of privacy claims were without merit because the district court had denied summary judgment on these issues; the district court appropriately granted Defendant Milligan, in his official capacity as Treasurer of the State of Arkansas, summary judgment on plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim where the Treasurer neither accepted nor distributed federal financial assistance; the district court's jury instructions on defamation were not erroneous; the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to give plaintiff's proposed jury instructions regarding invasion of privacy, agency, and cat's paw theory as to the Americans with Disabilities Act claim; and plaintiff's claims regarding whistleblowing activities were not supported by the record and were therefore rejected by the court. View "Singer v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of an action alleging that Myron's violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court held that amendment of the complaint would not have been futile where plaintiff's allegations raised a right to relief from the speculative level and was not just labels and conclusions. The court found that the relevant provisions noted that an obstruction of an accessible route violates the readily accessible standard unless the obstruction was isolated or temporary, like those due to maintenance or repairs, restocking shelves, or moving items to a storage room. Furthermore, an obstruction was not isolated or temporary unless it was promptly removed. In this case, plaintiff proposed to amend the complaint to allege that he visited Myron's approximately 15 times over the last four years and that the aisles were obstructed by displays and excess merchandise each of the times he visited. View "Hillesheim v. Myron's Cards and Gifts, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the Director's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims in an action alleging that the Director's procedures for inviting citizens to witness executions violated plaintiff's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff, an investigative journalist who formerly reported for St. Louis Public Radio and now works as a death penalty reporter for BuzzFeed News, wrote several articles criticizing Missouri's execution practices and the Director never responded to his requests to witness any executions.The court held that plaintiff had Article III standing where he has suffered an injury in fact because the Director has excluded him and all applicants sharing his particular viewpoint from viewing the executions. Furthermore, plaintiff's claim was not moot as there was a continuing controversy as to the standing policies and customs of the Department of Corrections. The court also held that Ex part Young permitted plaintiff's suit challenging the constitutionality of the Director's implementation, and thus the action may proceed in federal court. View "McDaniel v. Precythe" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to three officers based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim, alleging the violation of his constitutional rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. The court held that the officers were justified in their efforts to investigate plaintiff's Facebook post asking in response to a post advocating against gun control measures: "Which one do I need to shoot up a kindergarten?" The court held that no exigent circumstances prevented the officers from gathering additional information before making the arrest. Here, a minimal further investigation would have revealed that plaintiff's post was not a true threat. Therefore, it was beyond debate that had the officers engaged in further investigation, the only reasonable conclusion was that plaintiff had not violated the law for disturbing the peace. View "Ross v. City of Jackson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the school district and the Arkansas Department of Education, in an action alleging that plaintiffs' children were denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The court held that Child A and Child L were provided a FAPE and the district court did not err in rejecting their families' claims. The court noted that the district court's strategies, while they might have been imperfect, complied with the IDEA, included detailed strategies to address the children's behavioral problems and contained evidence that the children were progressing academically. The court held that Child S and Child G's claims were not administratively exhausted and the district court properly granted the district's motion for summary judgment on their claims. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an expert report as a sanction for plaintiffs' failure to disclose the report on a timely basis, and the report was conclusory and non-specific and would not have materially impacted the court's analysis. View "Parrish v. Bentonville School District" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the city in an action brought by plaintiff, the former city attorney for Minot, North Dakota. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion seeking to sanction the city for its alleged malfeasance in losing evidence. The court held that plaintiff's sex-based harassment claim failed because the only articulated basis for concluding that she was experiencing sex-based harassment was that the city manager unfavorably compared her work style to the previous city attorney; plaintiff's sex-based retaliation claim failed because she never made a report of sex stereotyping, so such a report could not have been the reason the city fired her; plaintiff did not suffer reputational harm from the allegedly false statements about her job performance and termination in the affidavits accompanying the city's summary judgment motion; and plaintiff cited no authority for the novel proposition that a defendant in a civil action can violate due process simply by submitting evidence in court. Finally, the court held that plaintiff's challenge to the district court's denial of her motion for additional time to respond was not properly before the court; plaintiff forfeited any right to challenge the award of litigation costs; and plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal certain portions of the record was granted. View "Auer v. City of Minot" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment finding that Officers Martorano and Moton used excessive force in their apprehension and arrest of plaintiff and award of damages to plaintiff. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the deposition testimony of an unavailable medical expert witness where the expert qualified as an expert and had been extensively cross-examined during his deposition, he was unavailable, and defendants had notice; the district court did not err in submitting plaintiff's punitive damage claim to the jury and the award against Moton was supported by substantial evidence; and the district court did not err in denying the officers' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to deduct from the judgment amount sums plaintiff had received from pretrial settlements with other defendants. View "Fletcher v. Tomlinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to a police officer based on qualified immunity in an action brought by plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officer applied excessive force when he brought plaintiff to the ground. The court held that, viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the facts gave rise to a question of unreasonable and excessive force for the ultimate finder of fact. In this case, plaintiff neither posed a threat to anyone's safety nor resisted arrest at the time that the officer executed the arm-bar takedown, and therefore his right to be free from unreasonable and excessive force was violated. Furthermore, the right was clearly established at the time. View "Neal v. Ficcadenti" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, which alleged violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court held that the Rehabilitation Act and section 1983 claims concerned the denial of a public education and thus plaintiffs were required to exhaust their administrative remedies first. Because plaintiffs failed to do so, these claims were properly dismissed. Likewise, the exhaustion requirement applied to the IDEA claim and no exception to the exhaustion requirement applied in this case. View "Smith v. Rockwood R-VI School District" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought a certificate of innocence under 28 U.S.C. 2513 and, simultaneously but separately, filed the instant case against Defendants Garrett and Sharp, among others, under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The jury subsequently returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the section 1983 action and defendants appealed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of plaintiff's prior arrests on drug offenses; in permitting limited testimony by the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted defendant Garrett as the evidence helped the jury understand the criminal charges which had been filed; and in permitting plaintiff to introduce expert testimony on police practices from a psychologist who was also a former police captain and police psychologist. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy to violate plaintiff's civil rights and to support the jury's verdict on his state law claims for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Finally, the court rejected challenges to jury instructions on conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and damages. View "Holmes v. Garrett" on Justia Law