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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of attempting to entice a minor using the internet. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction where the charged offense does not require the involvement of an actual minor. The court explained that even where an undercover officer is playing the role of a minor, an offender commits the crime of attempted enticement under 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) where he intends to entice a minor and engages in substantial conduct toward that end. In this case, defendant took substantial steps in furtherance of enticing the minor. View "United States v. Rajab" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction of an action challenging provisions in the tribal constitution requiring nonresidents to return to the reservation to vote in tribal elections and prohibiting nonresidents from holding tribal office. The court explained that it has previously held that the Voting Rights Act does not apply to Indian tribes because they are not states or political subdivisions subject to the Act. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the Indian Civil Rights Act does not contain a private right of action to seek injunctive or declaratory relief in federal court. In this case, plaintiff failed to allege that he intended to run for public office, and thus he lacked standing to challenge the Tribe's eligibility requirement for holding public office. View "Cross v. Fox" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his complaint as a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the district court's statement that the dismissal counted as a strike would only make a difference, if at all, once defendant has passed the three-filings threshold, and even then, only if all three were dismissed. Then, and only then, will the number of strikes be ripe for adjudication. View "Gonzalez v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 74 month sentence and fine imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to knowingly smuggle aliens into and throughout the United States in violation of law for commercial advantage and private financial gain. Defendant's conviction stemmed from him running a criminal enterprise that smuggled pregnant Marshallese women into the United States and profited by putting their infants up for adoption.The court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where, as here, courts may vary upward based on factors already considered under the Guidelines if they determine the weight the Guidelines assigned to a particular factor was insufficient. In this case, the district court found that the Guidelines failed to adequately account for defendant's role as an attorney and public official, his role as a leader and organizer of the offense, and the duration of his crime. The court also concluded that the district court appropriately applied the unwarranted sentencing disparity factor under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6). Finally, the district court did not clearly err by deciding to impose a fine and by imposing a fine within the Guidelines range. View "United States v. Petersen" on Justia Law

18 U.S.C. 3664(n), which governs application of inmate account funds to restitution, does not apply to accumulated prison wages. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting the government's Motion for Order to Authorize Payment from Inmate Trust Account, and directing the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to turn over $5,500 from defendant's inmate trust account for payment toward his outstanding restitution obligation. The court concluded that the record on appeal does not reveal the sources of the accumulated funds in defendant's account because the district court did not hold the hearing he requested. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Kidd" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate, filed suit against his healthcare provider and its medical staff for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law medical malpractice. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from allegations that defendants failed to diagnose him with a "likely" bacterial infection and to treat symptoms related to it. Plaintiff also alleged that defendants refused to provide him with functioning hearing aids, and refused to assess and provide reconstructive surgery for his broken ankles. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the health care provider and its medical staff.The Eighth Circuit concluded that plaintiff's deliberate indifference claims regarding non-diagnosis of the bacterial infection failed where defendants did not ignore his complaints, examined him regularly, gave him medications, and enrolled him in chronic care clinics. The court also concluded that a jury could credit plaintiff's deliberate indifference claims against defendants regarding his hearing aids, but his claims against CCS failed because he provides no evidence of any CCS policy, custom, or action by those representing official policy that inflicted a section 1983 injury. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded the district court's grant of summary judgment as to plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim regarding his hearing aids. Because there is now a federal question, the court reinstated the medical malpractice claim on remand. The court affirmed the remainder of the district court's judgment, and concluded that plaintiff's retaliation claims fail because he does not establish retaliatory motive. The court denied plaintiff's pro se motion to reassign this case to another judge on remand. View "De Rossitte v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law

Debtor, licensed under North Dakota’s pari-mutuel wagering system, filed for bankruptcy in 2004. Ten years later, the district court ruled that the state was not authorized to collect certain taxes from the Debtor. North Dakota agreed to pay the estate $15 million. Creditors asserted claims. Although the state constitution provides that “the entire net proceeds of such games of chance are to be devoted to educational, charitable, patriotic, fraternal, religious, or other public-spirited uses,” North Dakota did not raise the rights of any charities.In 2018, the bankruptcy court ruled on the claims. North Dakota filed a new proof of claim. The court concluded that the state lacked parens patriae authority to assert claims on behalf of charities. The Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) remanded. On remand, the state attempted to add a breach of contract claim. The bankruptcy court denied that motion and concluded that the contract claim had no merit. The court also rejected a constitutional-statutory claim.The BAP affirmed, rejecting arguments that North Dakota law requires that charities, not Debtor, recover the remaining tax settlement funds and that the court erred when it disallowed the contract claim. The state constitution concerns the legislature and does not govern the actions of private parties such as Debtor. Debtor paid the taxes originally; the reimbursement of those improperly-paid taxes should inure to the benefit of Debtor after distribution under the bankruptcy priority scheme. View "North Dakota v. Bala" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from plaintiffs' action alleging that nuclear waste materials from various St. Louis sites leaked into Coldwater Creek and its 100-year floodplain in St. Louis County, damaging their health and property. Following Cotter's removal to federal court on the basis of the Price-Anderson Act (PAA), the district court concluded that the PAA did not apply and remanded to state court. After plaintiffs amended their complaint in state court, Cotter filed a third party action for contribution against seven defendants, including Mallinckrodt, which then removed the entire lawsuit under the PAA and other bases. The district court granted the motion and Cotter appealed.After determining that the court has jurisdiction over the appeal, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion by determining that the PAA does not apply to plaintiffs' claims against Cotter because Cotter lacked an applicable license or indemnity agreement. Contrary to the district court's ruling, the court concluded that the PAA provides federal question jurisdiction over all "nuclear incidents," regardless of whether the defendant had an applicable license or indemnity agreement. The court explained that the PAA's text and history support its conclusion. In this case, the PAA Act provides original federal question jurisdiction for all nuclear incidents regardless of whether the defendant had an applicable indemnity agreement. View "In Re: Cotter Corporation" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed, based on lack of jurisdiction, plaintiffs' appeal of a district court order staying a federal action for trademark infringement and unfair competition pending resolution of common trademark license issues in a long-pending state court litigation between the parties. The court concluded that the stay order is neither a final order under 28 U.S.C. 1291 nor a collateral interlocutory order that may be appealed. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that if the Lomax Parties prevail on their broad allegations in state court, then the state proceedings will fully dispose of the claims in federal court. View "Window World International v. O'Toole" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that the evidence seized under the warrant should not be excluded. The court concluded that the record supports the district court's implicit finding that the disputed information was independent of any unlawful seizure. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in finding that investigators independently discovered the baggage incident from November 2016. In this case, it is reasonable to infer that once defendant's suspicious activities with currency were tied to the airport, investigators would review airport records on that basis alone to determine whether defendant had engaged in other suspicious activity at the airport.Even if the detention of defendant at the airport was unlawful, his voluntary and warned statements to investigators at the police station were sufficiently disconnected from the unlawful seizure to make them admissible. Therefore, it was proper for the district court to consider defendant's statements from that interview about structuring cash withdrawals in evaluating whether the search warrant affidavit established probable cause to search his home. Finally, after redacting from the affidavit evidence that resulted from the airport detention, the court concluded that the remaining information established probable cause to search. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law