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

After an arbitration panel issued its award in a dispute between J.B. Hunt and BNSF, the district court confirmed the award but denied Hunt's request for additional relief.The Eighth Circuit focused on the substance of Hunt's request for additional relief rather than how Hunt captioned it, concluding that the request was not premature. The court also concluded that, assuming Hunt's interpretation of the award is correct, it was entitled to a declaratory judgment to that effect once the district court had confirmed the award. BNSF's argument to the contrary is unavailing. Although the court agreed with BNSF that it need not reach the merits of the parties' dispute about the interpretation of the award to conclude that the district court properly denied Hunt's request for "enforcement" insofar as it was a request for an order of specific performance, the court did not need to reach the merits of the parties' dispute about the interpretation of the award to determine whether the district court properly denied Hunt's request for "enforcement" insofar as it was a request for a declaratory judgment. Finally, the court concluded that the parties' arguments expose a genuine ambiguity in the award, describing BNSF's obligations under the award. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

After defendant injured plaintiff while defendant was driving a vehicle owned by the US Postal Service, plaintiff filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and against defendant for negligence under Missouri law. The district court dismissed plaintiff's federal claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claim against defendant.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant was acting within the scope of his employment during the time of the accident under Missouri law. In this case, the Postal Service's written policies support a finding that defendant's deviation from his postal route was unauthorized and the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant violated the Postal Service's policies when he left his route for twenty-five minutes to purchase dog food for a friend, deliver the dog food at a location where he had already delivered mail, and take a break with his friend. Therefore, defendant was not acting within the scope of his employment during the deviation, and the deviation was neither slight nor incidental. Finally, whether defendant's conduct was within the scope of his employment is unrelated to the merits question of whether his conduct was negligent. The court explained that the scope of the employment in FTCA cases is a threshold jurisdictional question for the court, rather than the jury, to decide. View "Magee v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, on remand, that plaintiff has met his burden of showing that he is intellectually disabled and affirmed the district court's vacatur of plaintiff's death sentence.The court found that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that plaintiff met his burden of demonstrating that he is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for the death penalty. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in considering plaintiff's childhood IQ scores in accordance with this court's instructions; the district court did not clearly err in applying a +/-5 SEM to plaintiff's childhood IQ test scores; and thus the district court did not clearly err in concluding that plaintiff satisfied the intellectual functioning deficit prong under Arkansas law. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that plaintiff established a deficit in adaptive functioning under the second prong of the Arkansas statute. Furthermore, the district court did not clearly err in determining that the requisite deficits manifested before age 18, and the district court did not clearly err in determining that plaintiff has adaptive deficits. View "Jackson v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision ordering petitioner removed. The IJ had granted petitioner relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), finding that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by al-Shabaab if he were returned to Ethiopia. However, the BIA concluded that the IJ's factual conclusions were clearly erroneous because they were based on a hypothetical chain of occurrences and not a plausible view of the facts and record in the case.The court concluded that the BIA applied the correct legal standard and did not engage in impermissible factfinding. In this case, the BIA cabined itself to reviewing the record and concluded that the evidence could not support the IJ's conclusions about petitioner's likelihood of torture and the Somalian government's acquiescence; it did not reweigh the evidence or find its own facts; and it committed no legal or factual error. View "Mohamed v. Garland" on Justia Law

Jim Bakker and Morningside filed suit against several out-of-state defendants in Missouri federal court, alleging that defendants, while acting in their official capacities, violated their First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In February 2020, as the Covid-19 pandemic was beginning in the United States, Jim Bakker and Morningside began advertising a product called Silver Solution on the Jim Bakker Show. Bakker and Morningside claimed that Silver Solution "has been proven by the government that it has the ability to kill every pathogen it has ever been tested on;" that it "has been tested on other strains of the coronavirus and has been able to eliminate it within 12 hours;" and that it is "patented, it works, we have tested it, it works on just about everything." Bakker and Morningside allege that defendants' investigations into Silver Solution violate their constitutional rights and that the state statutes defendants have acted under are unconstitutional.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Assuming defendants fell under Missouri's long-arm statute, the court concluded that asserting personal jurisdiction in this case violates due process where the only contact with Missouri were letters and emails directed at Morningside Church and Bakker, rather than the forum state. Therefore, after considering the five factor test for assessing the sufficiency of a defendant's contacts, the court concluded that Bakker and Morningside have not demonstrated that defendants' conduct connects them to the forum in a meaningful way. View "Morningside Church, Inc. v. Rutledge" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner and her two daughters' motion to reopen and remand. After petitioners sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, their petition was denied. Petitioners then applied for a U nonimmigrant status and moved for the Board to administratively close their appeal pending review of the U visa.In this case, the government has conceded petitioners' prima facie eligibility for U visa status as well as their due diligence in seeking it. The court concluded that the BIA abused its discretion in two respects: it departed from established policy when it failed either to apply the Sanchez Sosa factors or to remand to allow the IJ to do so, and it failed to provide a rational explanation for its decision, including its treatment of this court's binding precedent in Caballero-Martinez v. Barr, 920 F.3d at 549. Accordingly, the court vacated the BIA's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gonzales Quecheluno v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order affirming the Social Security Administration's denial of plaintiff's claim for disability benefits. Plaintiff filed a claim for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income based on her diagnoses of mood disorders, lupus, and fibromyalgia, among other ailments.The court concluded that substantial evidence in the record supported the ALJ's denial of plaintiff's claim for benefits. In this case, the ALJ did not err by relying exclusively on the lack of objective evidence supporting plaintiff's fibromyalgia diagnosis to deny benefits. Rather, the ALJ noted that objective findings did not support her subjective allegations of disabling symptoms. Likewise, the court rejected plaintiff's claims that the ALJ erred in disregarding evidence of her moderate-severe musculoskeletal pain and widespread arthralgia, as well as the multidimensional health assessment questionnaire indicating that she had difficulty performing daily tasks. The court explained that there was substantial evidence in the record for the ALJ to focus on the "normal" reports and findings by plaintiff's treating physicians. Even if the ALJ made some misstatements in his order, the errors were harmless.The court also concluded that the district court did not err in failing to develop the record to clarify the number of tender points where any inconsistences were harmless error. The court further concluded that the ALJ's credibility determination and weight assigned to the testimony was supported by undisputed facts that plaintiff suffered from addiction, smoked, and failed to follow her treatment advice. Finally, the ALJ properly considered plaintiff's allegations of pain and properly weighed the decisions of her treating physicians and state agency consultant's opinions. View "Grindley v. Kijakazi" on Justia Law

This case arose out of defendant's incessant and extreme harassment of his ex-girlfriend, L.L., and her partner, D.B. A jury found defendant guilty on all counts of a 15-count indictment and the district court sentenced him to 600 months imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction on Count 8 for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A) where the commission of arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. 844(i), the predicate crime of violence, is impermissibly broad because an individual may be convicted under that section for committing arson against his or her own property whereas possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of section 924(c) requires the government to prove that the defendant committed the predicate crime against the property or person of another.The court affirmed defendant's convictions for one count of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle; two counts of stalking; two counts of interstate domestic violence; two counts of receipt and possession of an unregistered destructive device; two counts of being a prohibited person in possession of an unregistered destructive device; one count of fraudulent use of a means of identification of another person; one count of malicious use of explosive materials; one count of using explosive materials during the commission of a federal felony; one count of tampering with a witness; and one count of obstruction of an official proceeding. Finally, the court vacated defendant's sentence in its entirety so that the district court may reconfigure defendant's sentencing plan to guarantee that his sentence satisfies the 18 U.S.C. 3553 factors. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Mink" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court concluded that the evidence in the record is sufficient for the jury to find that defendant's finished rifle meets the first part of the definition of firearm as set forth in section 921(a)(3); the jury was properly instructed that the interstate commerce element of the offense is satisfied if the firearm was transported in interstate commerce at some time during or before the defendant's possession of it; defendant's mistake of law and mistake of fact arguments are unavailing; and the jury was properly instructed on the elements of the crime in a manner that tracked the statute and was consistent with Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). View "United States v. Burning Breast" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Missouri resident, filed suit in state court against her former employer, Ferrellgas, a propane supplier, as well as James Ferrell and Pamela Brueckmann, Kansas residents and employees and officers of Ferrellgas. Plaintiff alleged gender discrimination claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act against Ferrellgas (Counts I and II), and tort claims against all defendants (Counts IIIVI). After removal to the district court, the district court granted defendants' motion to compel arbitration in part.The Eighth Circuit reversed, concluding that the district court erred in concluding that no language in plaintiff's employment agreement suggested that she consented to arbitrate tort claims arising from actions which predated her employment. The court explained that, though plaintiff's claims are based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions made before and at the time she accepted employment, they are subject to arbitration because they arise out of and relate to the resulting employee agreement and employee relationship. The court also concluded that Ferrell and Brueckmann, officers and agents of Ferrellgas who were not parties to the Employee Agreement, may enforce the arbitration clause. The court concluded that a signatory plaintiff cannot avoid arbitration when she treated signatory and non-signatory defendants as a single unit. In this case, each of plaintiff's tort claims against defendants is a single one that should be referred in its entirety to arbitration. View "Morgan v. Ferrell" on Justia Law