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

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after she was terminated by the law school of Hamline University. Plaintiff alleged that the university, the dean, and the president of the St. Paul Police Federation (SPPF) conspired with the St. Paul Police Department to deny her constitutional right to freedom of speech. The court concluded that plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts that a police officer was acting under color of state law; plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts about the University or the Dean to demonstrate that they participated in a concerted action to terminate plaintiff; concerning leave to amend, plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a meeting of the minds between the Department, the SPPF, and the University; and the district court properly ruled that adding the SPPF would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Magee v. Trustees of Hamline University, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the cities, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., federal civil rights laws, and state laws stemming from the cities' demolition of his properties after declaring them nuisances. On remand, the district court concluded that plaintiff failed to state a claim under federal law and that the statute of limitations barred his FHA claims. The court concluded that the district court did not err by ordering the parties to brief the issue of whether plaintiff's complaints stated a claim under federal law; the district court properly considered the relevant evidence and did not err by excluding evidence plaintiff submitted; the district court did not err in concluding that the two-year statute of limitations barred plaintiff's FHA claims; the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiff's complaint, alleging 42 U.S.C. 1981-83 claims, failed to state a claim under federal law; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to alter or amend. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smithrud v. City of St. Paul, et al." on Justia Law

The Union sought to set aside an arbitration award that ruled in favor of the MADA and several member car dealerships. At issue was the transition between the 2006 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the 2010 CBA and its impact on above-scale time allowances for hybrid car warranty and recall work. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court agreed with the district court and found that the arbitrator was "warranted" in determining the CBA's plain language to be "silent or ambiguous with respect to the disputed issue - how the above-scale time allowances could be legitimately terminated." With MADA's attorney's unrebutted testimony and the letters documenting other dealerships' similar conduct to help the parties' past practice with respect to the ambiguous CBA language at issue, the court concluded that the arbitration award drew its essence from the CBA. Therefore, the court found no basis to vacate the arbitration award. The court affirmed the district court's order granting MADA's motion to dismiss with prejudice. View "Garage Maintenance, etc. v. Greater Metropolitan, etc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983. The district court concluded on remand that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity on any ground. Determining that the court had jurisdiction in this interlocutory appeal, the court concluded that plaintiffs had not put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that defendant's decisions were motivated by racial animus; plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defendant made stigmatizing comments about Plaintiff Jones that deprived Jones of his liberty interest to earn a living in his profession as a substance abuse counselor; and, therefore, the court concluded that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on the sections 1981 and 1983 claims. The court reversed the judgment of the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint. View "Jones, et al. v. McNeese" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging deliberate indifference by the University to her rape by another student and state law violations including breach of contract, misrepresentation, and negligence following a back injury she received in training for the field hockey team. The district court granted summary judgment to the University. The court concluded that plaintiff had not demonstrated a genuine issue of matter fact as to whether the University acted with deliberate indifference in respect to her rape and its aftermath; although plaintiff's sexual assault was clearly devastating to her, plaintiff had not shown that the University violated Title IX in its response to it or otherwise; plaintiff had not created a genuine issue of material fact on her negligence claim because she had not presented evidence to show the University breached a duty to conform to a standard of care; the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's misrepresentation claims because she provided no evidence that any representations made to her were actually false; plaintiff has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact on her breach of contract claim; plaintiff has not shown that Judge Autrey abused his discretion by declining to recuse where alumni connections were not a reasonable basis for questioning a judge's impartiality; plaintiff has not shown error or abuse by the district court or violation of her due process rights where she failed to present her positions as required by the court rules for the orderly disposition of issues; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to extend discovery under Rule 56(d). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Roe v. St. Louis University, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and the Estate of John Green appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Church Mutual. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that coverage for the injuries plaintiffs suffered because of their exposure to carbon monoxide was precluded by the pollution exclusions contained in the relevant policies where the court held that the Nebraska Supreme Court would conclude that carbon monoxide constituted a "pollutant" under the policies. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of plaintiffs' expert. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in rejecting plaintiffs' estoppel claim where the insured suffered no actual prejudice or harm as a result of Church Manual's delay in reserving its rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Church Mutual Ins. Co. v. Green, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, suffering from high-blood pressure, filed suit claiming that he became partially blind after treatment was delayed while in the Faulkner County, Arkansas jail. The court concluded that Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's medical-screening claim where there was no clearly established right to a general medical screening when admitted to a detention center and where he had less obvious signs of a serious medical condition; the County was was entitled to summary judgment on the medical-screening claim; at best, plaintiff's experts showed that Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin should have known that they were committing malpractice - but malpractice was not deliberate indifference; Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin were entitled to qualified immunity on whether medication should have been prescribed after several high blood-pressure readings; Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin were entitled to qualified immunity on whether they should have responded sooner to the missing medication at issue; at most, Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin were negligent, but deliberate indifference was more even than gross negligence; and since the County's prescription-delivery system may not be inextricably intertwined with Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin's treatment of plaintiff, the court lacked jurisdiction over the County's appeal. Accordingly, the court reversed judgment as to Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin on all claims, and as to the County on the medical-screening and delay-in-treatment claims. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the appeal of the claim against the County for delay in delivery, remanding for further proceedings. View "Fourte v. Faulkner County, Arkansas, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants Horton and Holmes were convicted of multiple crimes stemming from their involvement in a cocaine-distribution ring. The court concluded that some of defendants' arguments were waived because they failed to raise them at the pretrial suppression hearing and also failed to raise these arguments at trial; because defendants failed to show that the Government violated its obligations under Brady v. Maryland when it excluded fingerprint comparisons at trial, their claim failed; the Government's use of its confidential informant failed to establish a due process claim where the informant's misconduct could not be attributed to the Government; the Government did not impermissibly intimidate Horton's witness to keep her from testifying; Horton's allegation that DEA agents stole approximately $9,000 from his residence while executing a search warrant was not sufficient to support defendants' claim of outrageous government conduct that violated their right to due process; the district court did not err in failing to hold a Remmer hearing to investigate the possibility that a juror may have overheard a conversation between Holmes's defense counsel and Holmes's family; defendants failed to show that the Western District of Missouri's juror selection plan violated the fair-cross-section requirement of the Sixth Amendment; and the court rejected Holmes's three separate arguments on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Horton" on Justia Law

The Smiths appealed from the district court's order condemning portions of their property for the construction of a natural gas pipeline owned and operated by Alliance and granting Alliance immediate use and possession of the condemned land. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Smiths' statutory challenges based on 18 C.F.R. 157.6(d) and North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) 69-06-08-01. The court also concluded that the Smiths received reasonable notice that Alliance was applying to FERC for the right to condemn their land; the court rejected the Smiths' allegation that Alliance violated several state procedural rules in bringing the condemnation action because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1 preempted all of these state procedures; Alliance satisfied any duty to negotiate with the Smiths in good faith pursuant to the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717f(h); and the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Alliance was entitled to immediate use and possession pursuant to Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Alliance Pipeline L.P. v. 4.360 Acres of Land, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in a house. The court concluded that the officers' entry into the home was justified because they possessed multiple arrest warrants and reasonably believed defendant resided at and was present in the house before the officers observed defendant through the tinted window. As such, the court need not address defendant's contention that the evidence was obtained unconstitutionally because one of the officers pressed his face against a tinted window to see inside the home. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Glover" on Justia Law