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

The state appealed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner, who was convicted of murder. The court concluded that counsel's failure to move for a mistrial after the trial court improperly substituted an alternate juror for a juror who had been dismissed was a strategic decision that did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness under Strickland v. Washington. Further, the state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland in concluding that petitioner failed to establish prejudice. Accordingly, the court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief and reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Escobedo v. Lund" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the father and minor children of the deceased Samuel De Boise, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against police officers and the police department, as well as a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., against the county. The district court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to Officers Lively and Percich, and to the county. The court concluded that the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances; even if Officer Percich's and Lively's repeated tasings of Samuel amounted to excessive force in violation of Samuel's Fourth Amendment rights, such rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident; and the facts in this case did not demonstrate any violation of the ADA, considering the unexpected and rapidly evolving circumstances and the use of force on Samuel was due to his objectively verifiable misconduct, not his disability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "De Boise, Sr., et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al." on Justia Law

The United States appealed the district court's suppression of statements and evidence gathered during the search of defendant's home and car. Defendant was charged with two counts of receipt and one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that defendant's statements and consent were voluntary where the agent who interviewed defendant and requested his consent to search did not make threats or promises, use deceptive tactics, or even raise his voice. Additionally, defendant spoke clearly, was coherent, and appeared to understand what was happening. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's suppression of the statements. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of disaster fraud and making a false statement. Defendant had submitted an online application for disaster assistance for a residence in Joplin, Missouri that he had never lived at or signed a lease for. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of disaster fraud and making a false statement. View "United States v. Olsen" on Justia Law

Fastpath, an Iowa corporation, filed suit against Arbela, a California services and software corporation, for breach of a mutual confidentiality agreement. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Arbela where the nature, quality, and quantity of Arbela's contacts with Iowa were not sufficient to demonstrate purposeful availment of the forum state. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Technologies Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murdering his adopted special needs son, appealed the district court's denial of post-conviction relief based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. Petitioner contended that he received ineffective assistance from trial counsel because counsel inadequately advised him about whether to disclose the location of the boy's body and then disclosed the location of the body during the bond review hearing. The court concluded that the state court did not render a decision that was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established law where counsel's actions reflected a legitimate trial strategy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Boss, Jr. v. Ludwick" on Justia Law

After a fatal accident, plaintiffs filed suit against the tractor-trailer driver, the truck driver's employer (Fresh Start), the company that leased the tractor, the husband and wife who owned Fresh Start, and the company that owned the two trailers the tractor was pulling (FedEx). The district court granted FedEx's motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that the district court applied the proper standard under Nebraska law, carefully considered the control factor, and concluded that there was no evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Fresh Start was FedEx's employee; because FedEx was not acting as a motor carrier, it had no duty - nondelegable or otherwise - to require that the driver observe his Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) duties by reason of 49 C.F.R. 390.11; plaintiffs failed to establish a negligent entrustment claim where there was no evidence that FedEx was aware of facts permitting a reasonable jury to find that it knew or should have known that the driver was not a properly certified driver; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' untimely motion for leave to amend their complaint. View "Harris, et al. v. FedEx National LTL, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, CEO of Roxio, Inc., filed suit against Best Buy and Napster for breach of contract. The contract dispute arose out of Best Buy's refusal to pay plaintiff a performance award under an Award Agreement. The district court considered only the pleadings and matters embraced therein. The court held that the district court's reliance upon the Award Agreement did not convert the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court need not address plaintiff's subsequent argument that the district court erred by failing to defer the motion for summary judgment under Rule 56(d) to allow him to conduct meaningful discovery. Further, plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim was foreclosed by the language of the Award Agreement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Gorog v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the EPA seeking to impose emission-control technology on NSP's Sherco power plant. NSP moved to intervene but the district court denied the motion. The court concluded that NSP has sufficient Article III standing to intervene. Moreover, NSP's interests are not adequately represented by the existing parties and, thus, NSP is entitled to intervene as a right under Rule 24(a). Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to enter an order granting NSP's motion for leave to intervene as of right. View "National Parks Conservation, et al. v. Northern States Power Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, both individually and as the administrator of Bradley Gladden's estate, filed suit against officers and the police chief, alleging that the officers violated Bradley's rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-101 et seq., as well as committed the tort of wrongful death under the Arkansas Wrongful Death Act, Ark. Code Ann. 16-62-101 et seq. Bradley had requested that the officers give him a ride to his sister's house in the next county because he was intoxicated, but the officers instead left him at an isolated off-ramp at the county line, which was the edge of the officers' jurisdiction. The officers instructed Bradley to seek help at a nearby factory. Bradley ended up dying of hypothermia a half-mile from the drop-off, in the opposite direction of the factory. Where the Fourteenth Amendment generally does not give private citizens a constitutional right to police assistance, the court concluded that plaintiff could not establish that a special relationship existed because Bradley accepted a ride from the officers and was sober enough to make this decision rationally; and Bradley cannot avail himself of the constitutional right to police assistance based on a custodial relationship with the state. The court also concluded that Bradley's official capacity claims failed where, assuming that it was the Police Department's custom to give rides to persons in its jurisdictions, plaintiff could not demonstrate an affirmative duty of care. Consequently, plaintiff's state law claims also failed. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting the officers summary judgment based on qualified immunity, in granting official immunity to all defendants, and dismissing the state-law claims. View "Gladden, Jr. v. Richbourg, et al." on Justia Law