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

Creditor appealed from the orders of the bankruptcy court denying his requests for relief from the automatic stay and for abstention and remand. The court held that the bankruptcy court properly denied creditor's request for stay relief where there was no purpose for granting the stay since creditor's state court malpractice and negligence actions against debtor were dischargeable debts and his fraud claim was discharged when creditor failed to timely file an adversary proceeding. Further, there was no basis for an order of abstention and remand. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "Chae v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, driver of commercial motor vehicles, filed suit against Wal-Mart and others after he was injured when pallets fell onto him from a trailer. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, concluding that no reasonable jury could have found that the absence of securing devices was anything other than open and obvious to plaintiff. Further, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations placed the duty to secure cargo on carriers to inspect cargo to confirm that it is secure before and during transport of the cargo in a commercial motor vehicle. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the exceptions to this rule applied to him where he had not set forth sufficient facts to show that he was carrying a sealed load and was ordered to break the seal to secure the load, nor has he established that inspecting the cargo was impracticable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Aragon v. Wal-Mart Stores East, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for receiving child pornography. The credibility of the testimony at issue was for the jury, and the jury reasonably could have concluded that the government eliminated other potential recipients of the child pornography. Therefore, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that defendant knowingly received child pornography. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. View "United States v. Landsdown" on Justia Law

Movant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and identity theft. On appeal, movant challenged the district court's denial of her motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 challenging her sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In United States v. Bernard, the court held that a federal prisoner could not challenge the restitution portion of his sentence under section 2255 because the statute afforded relief only to prisoners claiming a right to be released from custody. In this case, movant was not claiming a right to be released from custody, and thus, even if she could demonstrate that counsel was ineffective, the claim could not be raised in a section 2255 motion. Accordingly, in light of Bernard, the court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal. View "Shephard v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured operating his employer's truck and came to a settlement with the tortfeasors. Then plaintiff and his wife filed suit against Continental for underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in his employer's policy. The district court granted Continental's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that plaintiffs could not stack their claims. The court concluded that the district court erred in finding a $2 million UIM limit where there was no ambiguity in the policy's selection form because the declarations page and UIM coverage endorsement specify a $500,000 UIM limit and the selection form did not contradict this limit. The court concluded that plaintiffs' failure to timely file their cross petition did not preclude review of the stacking claim. However, the court concluded that plaintiffs' arguments lacked merit and affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' stacking claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Munroe, et al. v. Continental Western Ins." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Indonesia, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his request for asylum and withholding of removal, as well as relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA adopted the IJ's reasoning and concluded that the harassment and intimidation petitioner experienced because of his religion and ethnicity did not rise to the level of persecution because they lacked severity or they were isolated acts of criminal conduct or lawlessness. Further, petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear or that he faced a clear probability of future persecution warranting relief if returned to Indonesia. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence supporting the IJ's determination that petitioner was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Further, petitioner failed to meet the more demanding standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Supangat v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action under federal and state law against members of the sheriff's office, including the arresting officer, after he was arrested on suspicion of violating a weapons possession statute. At issue on appeal was the district court's denial of the arresting officer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's false arrest claim. Under Arkansas Supreme Court precedent, a reasonable officer would understand a violation of Ark. Code Ann. 5-73-120(a) was predicated upon a person having "a purpose to employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person." The court affirmed, agreeing with the district court that the arresting officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he had probable cause to arrest plaintiff. View "Stoner v. Watlingten" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the Arkansas State Police and a state trooper, claiming that the trooper used excessive force when arresting him after a high-speed chase. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Arkansas State Police on the basis of sovereign immunity. Plaintiff had no cognizable claim for prospective injunctive relief against the trooper in his official capacity and plaintiff's claim was barred on the basis of sovereign immunity. However, the court could not conclude that the trooper's use of force once out of view of the dash camera was objectively reasonable as a matter of law. Rather, a reasonable jury could find that the severity of plaintiff's injuries demonstrated excessive force, particularly the trooper's decision to strike defendant using a metal flashlight after plaintiff was already on the ground and allegedly complying with the trooper's demands. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of qualified immunity to the trooper and remanded for further proceedings. View "Coker v. Arkansas State Police, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to laundering money and conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to ensure that defendant made his plea knowingly and voluntarily where defendant confessed his guilt to the crime and admitted the underlying facts as described by the government and as described in the plea agreement, and where he consulted with counsel and confirmed to the district court that he needed no additional time. The court also concluded that the district court properly found that counsel had no conflict of interest. In regards to defendant's claim that counsel was ineffective, the court did not address it because it relied upon evidence outside the record of conviction and should be raised through collateral proceedings rather than direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiring to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 750 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Because defendant's sentence was based on a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, Amendment 750 did not apply and he was not eligible for relief under section 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law