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

Plaintiff filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against the City of St. Louis and Doc’s Towing, Inc., alleging that Defendants violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they detained her truck pursuant to a “wanted” report. On the first appeal of this case the Eighth Circuit found that the evidence was sufficient for Plaintiff’s claims to survive summary judgment. Plaintiff then settled with Doc’s Towing, and her case against the City proceeded to trial. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the City on Plaintiff’s unreasonable seizure claim, and the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff on her due process claim and awarded her compensatory damages. The district court denied the City’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law but partially granted its motion to reduce the damages award. Both the City and Plaintiff appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that as to Plaintiff’s assertion on cross-appeal that the district court erred by granting the City judgment as a matter of law on her unreasonable seizure claim, the court declined to reverse that ruling. The court explained that her due process claims and unreasonable seizure claim sought compensation for the same injury, and she concedes that she would not be entitled to additional compensatory damages beyond those that were already awarded by the jury. Accordingly, the court declined to remand because Plaintiff failed to articulate what relief she could obtain beyond what she has already achieved by way of the jury verdict. View "Mary Meier v. City of St. Louis, Missouri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment on his claims that his former employer, ADESA Missouri, LLC (ADESA), discriminated against and retaliated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).   The Eighth Circuit reversed. The court concluded that Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether ADESA’s reasons for terminating him were pretext for disability discrimination and retaliation. The court agreed with Plaintiff’s assertion that a reasonable jury could determine that the company’s VP made the decision to terminate Plaintiff  because of his medical restriction and only retroactively claimed a performance-based concern after HR advised her that terminating an employee due to his disability could be “an issue.” The evidence shows that the VP sent an email to HR about an employee with a “medical restriction” who had been “identified” for termination, asking if this could be “an issue.” Only after she learned that it could be a problem did the VP respond with specific criticisms of his performance. ADESA argues that because Plaintiff does not dispute he was underperforming compared to his peers, there can be no pretext. But neither the sales director nor the VP was able to say when they took these performance assessments into consideration. Thus, the court concluded that Plaintiff has raised genuine doubt as to ADESA’s proffered reasons for his termination. View "Roby Anderson v. KAR Global" on Justia Law

Appellant Attorney Kezhaya represented The Satanic Temple, Inc., in its lawsuits against the City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota. The Temple sued the City, claiming that the City opened a limited public forum for a Christian monument, but closed the forum to exclude a Satanic monument. The City sought $33,886.80 in attorney’s fees incurred by responding to the complaint in the second lawsuit and preparing the motion for sanctions. The court determined that the rates charged by the City’s counsel were reasonable but observed that a portion of the work was duplicative of the first lawsuit and that the issues unique to the second lawsuit were not complex, novel, or difficult. The court thus reduced the requested amount by fifty percent and ordered the Temple’s counsel to pay the City $16,943.40 under Rule 11(c). Kezhaya appealed the sanctions order. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by (i) imposing sanctions, (ii) failing to consider non-monetary sanctions, and (iii) granting an arbitrary amount of sanctions.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that under the circumstances, it disagreed with Kezhaya’s contention about the righteousness of a second lawsuit. For the claims dismissed “without prejudice” in the first lawsuit, Kezhaya and the Temple made a strategic choice to seek leave to amend the complaint to correct the deficiencies identified in the dismissal order. Further, the court found that even if the City’s insurance carrier ultimately paid the fees, the fees were “incurred” for the motion and could be awarded under Rule 11(c)(2). View "Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendant, a corrections officer, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights while Plaintiff was a detainee at a jail in Minnesota. Defendant moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that qualified immunity protects governmental officials from suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 unless a plaintiff shows that the official’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. The court wrote that because Plaintiff was a detainee at the time of the incident, his relevant constitutional rights arise under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant argued that he did not violate Plaintiff’s clearly established right under the Fourteenth Amendment. He maintains that no constitutional violation occurred because “manual contact with a detainee’s genitals may be necessary as part of a search.” The court explained that as a general proposition, it is clearly established that “the sexual assault of an inmate by a guard violates the inmate’s constitutional rights.” The court explained that right is violated when a government official’s conduct is so egregious “that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.” Plaintiff asserts that Defendant subjected him to a strip search and, without legitimate penological justification, grasped his naked penis, squeezed it hard, and gestured. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a jury could find that the alleged conduct constituted sexual abuse or assault. View "Wilbert Glover v. R. Paul" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted Hobbs Act robbery and three firearm charges, including possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). Defendant argued that there is insufficient evidence to support his attempted Hobbs Act robbery conviction and that his Section 924(c) conviction should be vacated in light of United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022). He also challenged his sentence’s substantive reasonableness.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed his attempted Hobbs Act robbery conviction but vacated his Section 924(c) conviction under Taylor. The court also vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court explained that here Defendant repeatedly surveilled L.B.’s home. He donned a disguise and scripted his false entry. He had a rifle and planned to neutralize, if necessary, those he found inside. But he preferred to wield a handgun and told his fake accomplice he wouldn’t rob the house without one. Just before the trade, he was arrested. All told, the district court did not clearly err by finding the circumstances showed Defendant was about to complete all the acts he believed necessary to complete the Hobbs Act robbery but for the police’s intervention. The court explained that after Defendant’s trial, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Taylor and held that “attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the elements clause” of Section 924(c). This means that Defendant’s attempted Hobbs Act robbery conviction no longer qualifies as a predicate crime of violence for his Section 924(c) conviction. Thus the court vacated his Section 924(c) conviction in accordance with Taylor. View "United States v. Rufus Dennis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity. The charge arose from Defendant’s response to an online advertisement and his dialogue with an undercover detective who posed as a fourteen-year-old girl. At trial, the district court declined Defendant’s request to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment, and Defendant appealed that decision.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the requested instruction. The court explained that the evidence here shows that the government presented Defendant with an opportunity to entice an arguably sexually precocious minor whose appearance was arguably more mature than average. Defendant responded to an advertisement, and broached the topic of unlawful sexual activity with a fourteen-year-old girl. The detective posing as a minor carried on a lengthy dialogue with Defendant, but did not employ the tactics most likely to warrant an entrapment instruction: pressure, assurances that a person is not doing anything wrong, persuasion, fraudulent representations, threats, coercive tactics, harassment, promises of reward, or pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship. Without more, there was not sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the government impermissibly induced Defendant to commit the offense. View "United States v. Darren Lasley" on Justia Law

The Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections relied on staff to investigate and address sexual assault allegations against a prison guard. At summary judgment, Appellant requested qualified immunity. The district court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that she knew prisoners faced “a substantial risk of sexual assault.”   The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the entry of judgment in Appellant’s favor and denied Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The court wrote that even if it assumes that Appellant should have done more, neither “controlling authority” nor “a robust ‘consensus of cases of persuasive authority’” required it. The court explained that Plaintiff’s “broad right” to protection from sexual assault, in other words, “does not answer” the “specific and particularized” question of whether Appellant violated the Eighth Amendment by waiting for her staff to complete their investigation. View "Teri Dean v. Anne Precythe" on Justia Law

Two organizations, one individual, one business (collectively “Private Plaintiffs”) and seventeen states (“the States”) sued the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) for overstepping its statutory authority and for violating federal law in promulgating the “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms” (“Final Rule”). Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiffs have not clearly shown how the Final Rule will prevent them from engaging in constitutionally protected conduct. Regarding the business plaintiff in this case, we are left unsure what behavior it wishes to engage in, as an LLC, that is protected by the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs also argued they will suffer economic harm without a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs asserted generally that compliance costs and uncertainty surrounding the validity and scope of the Final Rule will be costly to businesses and lead to fewer sales of firearms. However, Plaintiffs do not explain the economic harm in definite enough terms to show the extent of any harm is “actual and not theoretical.” The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Plaintiffs have not met their burden. View "Morehouse Enterprises, LLC v. Bureau of ATF" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of first-degree murder and use of a firearm during a crime of violence that caused death. The district court sentenced Defendant to serve two concurrent life terms of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, asserting the district court committed four errors during trial: (1) when it allowed the government to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) of Defendant’s jealous behavior toward two other men; (2) when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal, finding the government had presented sufficient evidence of premeditation; (3) when it sua sponte failed to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense; and (4) when it denied Defendant’s request to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that evidence of the manner of killing also gives rise to a reasonable inference of premeditation. Although Defendant provided three different versions of what happened, in one accounting before the jury, Defendant told law enforcement that he aimed and fired at the victim, who was indisputably shot in the back of the head at a distance of at least three feet away. Further, Defendant retrieved that gun from his bedroom closet and shot the victim in the head as she tried to escape. Defendant’s actions after the shooting also point towards premeditation. Because there is ample evidence that supports the jury’s finding that the killing was premeditated, Defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim fails. View "United States v. Casey Crow Ghost" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment after McKenzie pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2250(a). Defendant appealed, arguing the district court incorrectly applied U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(b) by failing to account for the time he had served in Florida for a related state offense.Agreeing with Defendant, the Eighth Circuit reversed Defendant's sentence, finding that the district court did not reduce the sentence after finding the time served in Florida was for relevant conduct. Thus, the Eighth Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded for clarification. View "United States v. Alfonso McKenzie" on Justia Law