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

Plaintiffs, employees of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics sued the Iowa Board of Regents (“Board”), alleging state law claims. The Board removed the case to federal court after the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include a Fair Labor and Standards Act (“FLSA”) claim.The Board argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the FLSA claim because the Board has sovereign immunity. The court reasoned that FLSA overtime isn’t guaranteed for Board of Regents employees. And because its own pay agreements don’t separately provide FLSA overtime standards, the Board hasn’t consented to private accountability to those standards. A private cause of action cannot work as express consent to suits under the FLSA itself. Iowa courts retain the doctrine of constructive waiver of sovereign immunity.Further, though the University of Iowa system may benefit from the Board’s immunity at times, the University lacks independent authority to abrogate it. Finally, the court remanded for the district court to consider whether the legal consequences of the hospital’s policies can be attributed to the Board. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Melinda Myers v. Iowa Board of Regents" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to embezzlement and conspiracy to embezzle. The sentencing guidelines provided a base range of 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment. However, the prosecution sought an upward variance based on an uncharged shooting involving Defendant.The day before Defendant committed the crimes for which he was charged, he became frustrated after an altercation in a convenience store, fired a gun in the direction of two men outside the store, and hit and killed a child. The next day, Defendant and his aunt conspired to embezzle money from Defendant’s employer so he could leave town. After considering the shooting as well as Defendant’s intellectual disability, the district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence. Although the district court did not provide an in-depth discussion of Defendant’s intellectual disability, the court did not commit procedural error. The court also held that Defendant’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable in light of the facts. The district court did not err in heavily relying on the uncharged shooting to vary upward. Nor did the court err in failing to consider Defendant’s intellectual disability. View "United States v. Malik Ross" on Justia Law

Defendant and nine others were charged with conspiring to sell methamphetamine between 2015 and 2019. The other nine co-defendants all pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government in Defendant's case. The prosecution sought admission of controlled buy in which Defendant sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant several months before the conspiracy began. The district court admitted the transaction with a limiting instruction. A jury found Defendant guilty, and the judge sentenced him to 130 months incarceration.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the co-conspirators' statements against Defendant were admissible because the evidence “stemmed from reasonably foreseeable buys and aided in proving the extent of the conspiracy.” The court also found that evidence of the controlled buy was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction and that the district court did not commit any error when calculating Defendant’s sentence. View "United States v. Travis Ferguson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a police officer, served in the Intelligence Division. When a new captain took over, he made personnel changes, including the transfer or detachment of 17 male officers and 5 female officers across the department. Two males and two females were transferred out of the Intelligence Division. Plaintiff was transferred to the Fifth District.Shortly after her transfer, Plaintiff filed a discrimination charge with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. Around the same time, Plaintiff sought to transfer out of the Fifth District. The Captain made an informal request for Plaintiff’s transfer, but no formal request was ever made. Eventually, the following year, Plaintiff was transferred back into the Intelligence Division.Plaintiff filed gender discrimination and retaliation claim in state court. Defendants removed the case to federal court. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that Plaintiff’s transfer from the Intelligence Division to the Fifth District did not constitute an adverse employment action. Plaintiff’s pay and rank remained the same after the transfer. The transfer did not affect her future job prospects. An employee’s reassignment, absent proof of harm resulting from that reassignment, is insufficient to constitute an adverse employment action. View "Jatonya Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, State of Mo" on Justia Law

Petitioner’s husband is a former police officer who joined the auto-defense group to fight local drug cartels in Mexico. Possibly due to his involvement in the group, Petitioner’s husband went missing. Petitioner and her family were threatened by a rival group and eventually moved to Kansas.Petitioner sought admission into the United States in 2016. The Department of Homeland Security determined Petitioner was inadmissible and began removal proceedings. Petitioner acknowledged she was inadmissible, but applied for asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied relief and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BOA”) affirmed.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding Petitioner’s testimony credible but insufficient to establish she suffered from “past persecution” or was likely to suffer from future persecution. Petitioner was never physically harmed in Mexico and any threats against her were isolated. Further, there was no effort to carry out any of the threats. View "Guadalupe Barrera Arreguin v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced a class-action lawsuit alleging that SC Data Center, Inc. (“SC Data”) committed three violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The parties reached a settlement agreement. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), SC Data moved to dismiss the action. The plaintiff first alleged that SC Data took an adverse employment action based on her consumer report without first showing her the report. The court reasoned that the right to pre-action explanation to the employer is not unambiguously stated in the statute’s text. Next, the plaintiff asserts that SC Data obtained her consumer report without first obtaining an FCRA compliant disclosure form. The court found that plaintiff has not established that she suffered a concrete injury due to the improper disclosure. Finally, the plaintiff’s last claim asserts that she did not authorize SC Data to obtain a consumer report. She did authorize a company to conduct a criminal background search. The court found that plaintiff has not pleaded any facts demonstrating concrete harm—a prerequisite for Article III standing. As such, she lacks standing to pursue her failure-to-authorize claim. The court vacated the district court's orders. View "Ria Schumacher v. SC Data Center, Inc." on Justia Law

After a civilian reported a vehicle traveling the wrong way on the highway, a state trooper located Defendant driving a vehicle matching the description. The trooper, who had a K9 unit with him, initiated a traffic stop after noticing the vehicle’s tint appeared to violate state law. During the stop, the trooper discovered the defendant’s driver’s license was suspended. While the trooper was waiting for backup, he asked Defendant to consent to a K9 search of the vehicle. The defendant declined; however, relying on highway patrol protocol, the trooper proceeded with the K9 search. The K9 unit indicated the presence of narcotics, prompting the trooper to search the vehicle, where he discovered cocaine, methamphetamine and a firearm. A subsequent inventory search of the vehicle revealed two additional handguns and a small amount of methamphetamine. Several days later, the trooper performed a second inventory search, locating 459 grams of methamphetamine.The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress based on the prolonged nature of the initial traffic stop and various departures from highway patrol policy in conducting the inventory search.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding the traffic stop was not impermissibly extended due to the discovery of narcotics and a firearm. The court also held that the trooper substantially complied with departmental policy in conducting the inventory searches. Finally, the court rejected Defendant’s claim that the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on claims the prosecutor violated the prohibition against mentioning the defendant’s failure to testify. View "United States v. Jose Perez" on Justia Law

Petitioners, three brothers who are Bolivian citizens, came to the United States on temporary visas in 2015. Petitioners claim they fled Bolivia because investors in their business, many of whom were retired military and government officials, were unhappy with the lack of returns and threatened Petitioners. Petitioners also faced fraud charges in Bolivia. Based on these charges, Interpol issued Red Notices seeking Petitioners’ arrest.Upon the expiration of their temporary visas, Petitioners sought asylum in the United States. The immigration judge denied Petitioners’ claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and Protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Pertaining to Petitioner’s CAT claims, the immigration judge found that Petitioners had not shown it was more likely than not they would be tortured if returned to Bolivia. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.The Eighth Circuit denied relief. The immigration judge’s adverse credibility determinations were supported by the record and thus, entitled to deference. Additionally, Petitioners’ evidence suggesting they would be tortured if returned to Bolivia was based on “abusive or squalid conditions in pretrial detention facilities or prisons that result from a lack of resources rather than a specific intent to cause severe pain or suffering.” These conditions, the court held, failed to rise to the level of torture. View "Victor Paredes Gonzales v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding the denial of his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court rejected petitioner's contention that the Board erred by declining to address the IJ's adverse credibility finding where the court agreed with the Board that the IJ's decision includes an alternative determination that petitioner's claim would fail even if his testimony were believed. The court also concluded that the Board adequately addressed petitioner's arguments on administrative appeal and that the IJ's decision is sufficient to allow for meaningful judicial review. Because petitioner's procedural objections are without merit, the petition for review is denied. View "Jama v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempted enticement of a minor and interstate travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. The court also concluded that there was no error in the district court's application of a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) for unduly influencing a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct and under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's within-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable; there was no error in requiring defendant to submit to polygraph tests; the award of restitution was proper under the Abolish Human Trafficking Act; and there was no abuse of discretion in determining the amount of restitution. View "United States v. Kempter" on Justia Law