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

The plaintiff alleged that during the September 17, 2017 protests of the acquittal of a St. Louis police officer on murder charges, police officers violated his civil rights when they boxed or "kettled" him in with other protestors and then pepper-sprayed him, arrested him, and restrained him with zip ties. In the plaintiff’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to indicate his seizure was unreasonable. With respect to the excessive force claims, based on the record and plaintiff's allegations, the court could not conclude as a matter of law that the force used against the plaintiff was objectively reasonable. The plaintiff's claim of excessive force against the supervising police officers was sufficient at this stage of the case to defeat the officers' claims of qualified immunity. "There are simply too many unknowns and factual disputes" to determine as a matter of law that the subordinate police officers reasonably relied on their superiors' orders to arrest the crowd at the downtown intersection. View "Baude v. Leyshock" on Justia Law

DHS placed Robles in removal proceedings following his arrest for injuring a pedestrian while driving under the influence. Urrutia applied for cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1229b. An IJ found that Urrutia satisfied the four eligibility requirements, concluded that Urrutia’s “significant negative factors” were outweighed by positive factors, and granted relief. Reviewing that discretionary determination de novo, the BIA denied cancellation of removal, ordered Urrutia removed to Mexico, then denied his timely motion to reopen proceedings. In 2019, the Eighth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the initial discretionary decision and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Urrutia’s motion to reopen.Urrutia filed a second motion to reopen, citing newly-discovered evidence and his due diligence and extraordinary circumstances as “compelling statutory tolling of the time and number limits on motions to reopen. The BIA denied that motion, stating “[w]e balanced the respondent’s equities and negative factors" concluding that he did not warrant discretionary relief, given his repeated DUI offenses and that “supplemental evidence is not likely to change the outcome of the proceedings.” The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review. Motions to reopen removal proceedings are disfavored because there is a “strong public interest” in finality. View "Robles v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the Arc of Iowa and Iowa parents whose children have serious disabilities that place them at heightened risk of severe injury or death from COVID-19, filed suit to enjoin enforcement of Iowa's law prohibiting mask requirements in schools. The district court concluded that the law violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, granting a preliminary injunction completely enjoining the law.After determining that it has jurisdiction, the Eighth Circuit held that plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction because mask requirements are reasonable accommodations required by federal disability law to protect the rights of plaintiffs' children. However, the court concluded that the injunction imposed by the district court sweeps more broadly than necessary to remedy plaintiffs' injuries. Accordingly, the court vacated in part and remanded to allow the district court to enter a tailored injunction prohibiting defendants from preventing or delaying reasonable accommodations and ensures that plaintiffs' schools may provide such reasonable accommodations. View "The Arc of Iowa v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Bank of the West in state court, seeking to set aside the trustee's sale of his property. After the claim was dismissed, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding U.S. Bank as a defendant. The case was removed to federal district court where it was ultimately dismissed.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal orders, concluding that the federal law violations as alleged in the second amended complaint all occurred prior to the institution and maintenance of any foreclosure activity. Therefore, they were not defects in the trustee's sale under Nebraska law. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint where the motion was procedurally defaulted and granting leave would be futile. View "Anderson v. Bank of the West" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of interstate stalking (Counts 1 and 2) and six counts related to his unlawful receipt and possession of firearms. Defendant was sentenced to a total of 420 months of imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of interstate stalking of the victim. The court explained that a single incident is sufficient to commit the offense. The court concluded that the government failed to show that defendant traveled in interstate commerce with the intent to harass another victim and therefore vacated one count. The court further concluded that even if the government used testimony from the first victim that it knew or should have known was false, defendant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the perjured testimony could have affected the verdict on Count 2. Consequently, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Gross" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for receipt of child pornography, concluding that the district court did not clearly err in considering Dropbox files when it calculated defendant's offense level where defendant's Dropbox account stored "actual images and videos," not just URLs or hyperlinks. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in applying a five-level sentencing enhancement for distribution in exchange for any valuable consideration under USSG 2G2.2(b)(3)(B); for sadistic images and images showing sexual abuse of a toddler under USSG 2G2.2(b)(4); for possession of more than 600 images under USSG 2G2.2(b)(7)(D); and in denying defendant's request for a sentence reduction based on acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1. View "United States v. Hennings" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in an action brought against their insurance company, seeking payment of the policy limit in full on the claim for the second of two fires that destroyed their house. Because the plain language of the Total Loss Valuation provision, the context of the rest of the policy, and Minnesota's background common-law principles all support plaintiffs' result-based interpretation, the court concluded that the second fire alone caused a total loss. Therefore, plaintiffs were entitled to the full policy limits over and above what the insurer had paid for damages caused by the first fire. View "Shaw v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for five counts of producing child pornography because defendant's appeal of his sentence falls within the scope of his appeal waiver. The court reversed the district court's order regarding the $50,000 assessment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2259A, and remanded for clarification based on the confusion regarding whether all of the assessment should be awarded as an assessment to the Child Pornography Victims Reserve or whether some part should be awarded as an assessment to the Reserve and some part awarded as restitution under section 2259 to the victims. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

After plaintiffs filed suit for various torts in Iowa state court against a radiologist at the Veterans Health Administration's Medical Center, the case was removed to federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The district court substituted the United States as defendant and subsequently dismissed the case.The Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary and that defendant acted within the scope of his employment such that the government was properly substituted as the defendant in this case. Applying Iowa law, the court concluded that the radiologist's conduct was largely authorized by the VHA; responses from VHA management reinforce the normalcy of the radiologist's conduct; the VHA had strong reason to foresee conduct like the radiologist's; the time and place of his conduct also places it within the scope of his employment; and his purpose, without more, does not render his acts a substantial deviation from his scope of employment. View "Kearns v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute it and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. In this case, the district court remarked at the sentencing hearing that Sentencing Commission data showed that defendants like the defendant here received a sentence within the recommended Sentencing Guidelines range more often than not.The court concluded that even if the district court misapprehended nationwide sentencing statistics, it determined from its own, court-specific records that it did not often sentence ordinary career offenders below the Guidelines where they had "earned their stripes as a career offender" as defendant had. Therefore, the court concluded that any error did not substantially influence the outcome of the sentencing proceeding and thus was harmless. View "United States v. Shell" on Justia Law