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

Defendant was sentenced to 840 months of incarceration following a guilty plea to two counts of producing child pornography (360 months each) and one count of committing an offense while a registered sex offender (mandatory minimum of 120 months). Defendant’s pornography production offense involved the sexual abuse of his ten-year-old nephew and four-year-old niece. In addition to the incarceration, the district court also imposed ten years of supervised release. As a special condition of the supervised release, the district court required that Defendant not contact the victims or the victims’ family without permission from his probation officer. Defendant argued that the district court made three reversible errors during sentencing. Specifically, he asserted that (1) his lengthy sentence is substantively unreasonable; (2) the special condition of supervised release is not narrowly tailored; and (3) the district court failed to make an individualized inquiry when crafting the special condition of supervised release.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in either the length of the sentence or in imposing the challenged special condition of supervised release. The court held that the district court considered all the applicable Section 3553(a) factors and committed no clear error of judgment in weighing them. Further, the court found that the district court highlighted the hideousness and destructiveness of Defendant’s crimes. The district court concluded that Defendant “fundamentally violated the trust of these good people and this child, these children.” The court’s statement reflects its individualized inquiry into Defendant’s case and made a sufficient record of the court’s thorough consideration of the circumstances. View "United States v. Andrew Scanlan" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to three firearm and controlled-substance offenses. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender under United States Sentencing Guidelines Section 4B1.1(a).   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that based on the language and structure of Iowa’s conspiracy statutes, Iowa state court decisions, and Iowa’s model jury instructions, it concludes that Section 706.3(2) is divisible as to the non-forcible felony that serves as the object of a conspiracy. Here, the specific object of Defendant’s Section 706.3(2) conspiracy is not in dispute: the PSR stated that Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit the offense of willful injury causing bodily injury, and Defendant does not contend that he conspired to commit a different offense. Further, the court explained that because it “generally interprets the identical ACCA and Guidelines force clauses interchangeably,” willful injury causing bodily injury qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines as well. View "United States v. Devon McConnell" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with thirteen charges related to fraud and tax evasion. Defendant insisted on representing himself, despite the District Court’s thorough colloquy. Ultimately, Defendant was convicted and sentenced to 97 months imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.Defendant appealed on several grounds, including insufficiency of the evidence, the district court’s acceptance of his expressed desire to represent himself, evidentiary issues, and sentencing issues. The court rejected Defendant’s appellate issues in turn and affirmed his conviction.However, on the government’s cross-appeal, the court vacated the judgment. The District Court erred in failing to award the government the costs of the prosecution. View "United States v. Jeffrey Kock" on Justia Law

In March 2021, the Camden County Commission voted to ban Plaintiff from county property for one year because he allegedly disrupted and harassed county officials and employees. Plaintiff sued Camden County, the Camden County Commission, and Commissioner (collectively, “Defendants”), claiming that Defendants retaliated against him for exercising his rights under the First Amendment.Defendant sought a preliminary injunction against Defendants and a damages claim against the Commissioner. The District Court granted the preliminary injunction over the Commissioner’s qualified immunity defense, finding that Plaintiff adequately alleged a violation of clearly established rights. However, the court determined Defendants’ appeal of the injunction was moot because it would have expired in March 2022. View "Nathan Rinne v. Camden County" on Justia Law

Zurich American Insurance Company (“Defendant”) insured St. Joe Minerals Corporation (“St. Joe”) and its sole shareholder Fluor Corporation (“Plaintiff”) from 1981 to 1985. St. Joe operated a lead smelting plant in Herculaneum, Missouri. Residents of the town sued Fluor and St. Joe in the early 2000s, claiming that they had been injured by the plant’s release of lead and other toxins.Defendant agreed to defend the companies and paid out $9.87 million. Defendant also contributed more than $25 million to a settlement between St. Joe and the remaining plaintiffs. Plaintiff went to trial, lost in a jury trial, and then settled the claims for $300 million.Defendant filed for declaratory judgment against Plaintiff, who filed a counterclaim alleging bad faith failure to settle. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant, concluding that the policy limited Defendant’s liability on a per-occurrence basis and that the $3.5 million per-occurrence limit had been exhausted by Defendant’s initial payments. The court also concluded that Defendant did not act in bad faith when it elected not to settle the claims against Plaintiff.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s policy-limits determination and remanded for further proceedings. The court found that an endorsement modified the limits of liability for comprehensive general liability, including bodily injury liability, to be on a per-claim basis. View "Fluor Corporation v. Zurich American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, thousands of Peruvian citizens, alleged injury from Doe Run’s lead-mining and smelting complex in La Oroya, Peru. Doe Run, based in St. Louis, Missouri, has operated the complex since 1997. The Renco Group owns Doe Run. Plaintiffs sued in Missouri state court, and Defendants removed the case to the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Defendants submitted a report to the district court about allegedly fraudulent conduct by two former “plaintiff recruiters” in Peru. Defendants sought certain discovery in this case. Plaintiffs opposed these efforts and filed for a protective order to bar the defendants from obtaining discovery from the non-trial-pool Plaintiff. Plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion for a protective order to prohibit Defendants’ Peruvian counsel from participating in witness interviews in the Peruvian criminal investigation, claiming that it would be impermissible ex parte communication. Defendants appealed the grant of Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a protective order. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. But they moved to withdraw their motion to dismiss.   The Eighth Circuit granted Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and denied Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw their motion to dismiss as moot. The court reasoned that though the order is not appealable merely by virtue of its effect on a foreign criminal investigation, it may nevertheless be appealable if it has the practical effect of an injunction and has serious, irreparable consequences. The court concluded that the order does not have that effect. Moreover, Defendants have not demonstrated that it has serious, irreparable consequences. View "Chris Collins v. Doe Run Resources Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former pretrial detainee in the custody of the Ozark County Sheriff’s Department, filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claiming that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs by denying him prescription medication. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that Defendants were subjectively aware of but disregarded a serious medical need. The facts construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff show that the “defendants, who are not medical personnel, substituted their controlled substance ‘policy’ and their schedule for administering or failing to administer medication for that of a treating physician.” Further, Defendants failed to administer or misadministered the medication to Plaintiff despite knowing a doctor prescribed them and despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests for his medication. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, his “right to adequate treatment was clearly established, and the district court properly denied Defendants qualified immunity. View "Tracy Presson v. Darrin Reed" on Justia Law

This appeal concerns the scope of a landlord’s duty under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 to make “reasonable accommodations” for the “handicap” of a tenant. The City of Dubuque approved a measure allowing the local public housing authority to provide residents of mobile-home parks with housing choice vouchers that could be used to supplement their rent payments. Under this voucher program, the federal government provides funds to local public housing agencies, which in turn may distribute them to low-income tenants. As the rent on Plaintiff’s lot increased, she received a voucher and sought to use it to supplement her rent payments, but the companies declined to accept the voucher. Plaintiff requested an injunction requiring the companies to accept her housing choice voucher, and she sought damages for alleged emotional distress. Plaintiff also brought claims under state laws.   The Eighth Circuit vacated the injunction. The court concluded that while the statute requires a landlord to make reasonable accommodations that directly ameliorate the handicap of a tenant, the obligation does not extend to alleviating a tenant’s lack of money to pay rent. The court wrote that the term “reasonable accommodation” is not defined in the statute, but it was adopted against the backdrop of a predecessor statute and must be viewed in the context of a law that forbids discrimination “because of a handicap.” View "Suellen Klossner v. IADU Table Mound MHP, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of kidnapping and two counts of transporting a minor across state lines for sexual purposes. He now appealed his conviction, challenging several of the district court’s rulings. These include the exclusion of evidence of the victims’ prior sexual activity, the admission of prior misconduct evidence, the admission of a prior sex-offense conviction, the rejection of Defendant’s requested jury instructions, and the denial of his motion for a new trial.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that applying the four-prong test for 404(b) evidence, it found that the district court did not abuse its discretion. As to the first prong, the 2004 conviction is relevant to material issues, including Defendant’s intent or plan to commit the crimes at issue and his identity as the assailant. The kidnapping at the heart of the 2004 conviction took place within a year of the criminal activity alleged here. On the third prong, the 2004 conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. Further, the court explained that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Again, the district court performed the requisite balancing under Rule 403 and included a limiting instruction. Moreover, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior sex-offense conviction under Rule 413. View "United States v. Myron Brandon" on Justia Law

Following her conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1) and 846, Defendant appealed from the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence and statements she made in connection with warrantless parole searches of her person and residence.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that based on the totality of the information available to the officers, the court agrees with the district court that law enforcement had reasonable suspicion that Defendant was engaged in illegal drug distribution sufficient to justify the warrantless parole searches. The court found that here, law enforcement gathered a variety of information from March 2020 to May 19, 2020, regarding Defendant and her involvement in illegal drug distribution, and officers were permitted to rely on their collective knowledge to support the decision to conduct a parole search. View "United States v. Heather Schaefer" on Justia Law