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

The State appealed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of an Arkansas statute requiring medication-abortion providers to contract with a physician who has hospital admitting privileges. The Eighth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that the district court failed to make factual findings estimating the number of women burdened by the statute. On remand, the district court should conduct fact finding concerning the number of women unduly burdened by the contract-physician requirement and determine whether that number constitutes a "large fraction." View "Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma v. Jegley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Kenny Gurley's mother, filed suit alleging numerous federal and state law causes of action after Gurley was involved in a physical altercation with two officers and died. On appeal, the officers and the Board sought interlocutory review of the district court's grant in part and denial in part of summary judgment on the basis of state and federal immunity. The Eighth Circuit held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims where the officers violated Gurley's constitutional right to be free from excessive force and the officers' actions were objectively unreasonable at the time. Furthermore, the officers were not entitled to official immunity on the state law claims where a jury could find that the officers acted with bad faith and malice. With respect to the Board, the court held that it was not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's section 1983 claim. However, the Board was protected by sovereign immunity on the wrongful death claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Lancaster v. Board of Police Commissioners" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of her son, alleging that VICC's race-based, school-transfer policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that plaintiff lacked standing because the mention of magnet schools and the generalized grievance about VICC's transfer policy for them was insufficient to allege an injury in fact. In this case, VICC had no administrative or supervisory authority over charter schools, which are independent public schools, governed by the state. Even if VICC's policy applied to charter schools, VICC still would not cause the son's injury because VICC does not make or adopt rules or regulations for charter schools. Because the son's injury was not fairly traceable to VICC, he lacked standing. View "E.L. v. Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a commercial photographer, filed suit against the Village for injunctive and declaratory relief after the Village passed a municipal ordinance prohibiting all commercial activity in its neighborhood park without a permit. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of her Free Speech rights claims, holding that the ordinance met constitutional scrutiny as applied to plaintiff because it was content neutral, was narrowly tailored to serve the Village's significant government interests, left ample alternatives for her to communicate her message, and did not provide the Village with unbridled discretion. View "Josephine Havlak Photographer, Inc. v. Village of Twin Oaks" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against a former police officer, alleging that the officer violated plaintiff's constitutional rights by deliberately or recklessly giving partially inaccurate testimony in a probable cause hearing. After two prior remands, the district court found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit held that, although a reasonable officer would know that it was unlawful to use deliberate or reckless falsehoods in a probable cause hearing, the officer here was entitled to qualified immunity. In this case, ample facts supported the issuance of the arrest warrant for plaintiff without the officer's inaccuracies. Accordingly, the court affirmed summary judgment and dismissal in favor of the officer. View "Odom v. Kaizer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against five police officers, three prosecutors, the city of Columbia, and Boone County, alleging numerous violations of his constitutional rights arising from his encounters with police. The Eighth Circuit rejected defendant's argument that the district court erred by failing to transfer his recusal motions to another judge for decision; the district court did not err by denying the recusal motions on the merits because none of the facts singly or in combination would provide an objective, knowledgeable member of the public with a reasonable basis for doubting the judge's impartiality; and the district court did not err, in its thorough and well reasoned opinions, by granting motions to dismiss and summary judgment by defendants and denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. View "Akins v. Knight" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to plaintiff's excessive force claim against Deputy Sheriff Daniel Hallock. The court held that, based on the circumstances Hallock confronted upon arriving at the 101 Bar & Grill, his use of the arm-bar technique fell short of the level of force required to constitute a constitutional violation. In this case, Hallock was dispatched to that location in response to a report that a man had threatened to stab several patrons with a knife. Although plaintiff neither visibly possessed a weapon nor attempted to resist arrest prior to the takedown, a variety of factors suggested that the amount of force Hallock employed was reasonable under the circumstances. View "Vester v. Hallock" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants for constitutional violations resulting from an encounter between Officer Wilson and Johnson. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that he was seized; that there was a violation of a constitutional right; and, at the time of the incident in this case, that the law was sufficiently clear to inform a reasonable officer that it was unlawful to use deadly force against nonviolent, suspected misdemeanants who were not fleeing or resisting arrest, posed little or no threat to the officer or public, did not receive verbal commands to stop, and whose only action was to stop walking when a police car blocked their path. Therefore, a reasonable officer in Officer Wilson's position would not have shot his gun and the district court correctly denied qualified immunity to Officer Wilson. Furthermore, the district court did not err by denying Chief Jackson qualified immunity and the court did not have jurisdiction to review the City's liability. The court dismissed the rest of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Johnson v. City of Ferguson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation leading to wrongful termination. The Eighth Circuit rejected plaintiff's claim that the district court failed to consider her status as a pro se litigant; sovereign immunity barred plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; and 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 83; assuming that plaintiff met her burden of establishing a prima facie case of race and gender discrimination under Title VII, the university has offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her (failure to report for work and the need to fill her position); and plaintiff's claim of discrimination was rejected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bunch v. University of AR Board of Trustees" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the school district, alleging that the district and others violated his due process rights by declining to renew his coaching contract solely on the basis of parental complaints. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the due process claims. The court held that the 2013 amendment to Minnesota Statue 122A.33 did not grant plaintiff a property interest in the renewal of his coaching contract. View "McGuire v. Independent School District No. 833" on Justia Law