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

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision upholding the denial of his request for asylum and withholding of removal, based on a finding that serious reasons exist to believe Barahona committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States.The Eighth Circuit held that the "serious reasons for believing" standard requires a finding of probable cause before an alien can be subject to the mandatory bar set forth in 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii), and 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(d)(2). Because no such finding was made in this case, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rubio Barahona v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Flesner Wentzel, debtor's ex-wife's attorney, and confirmation of debtor's Sixth Amendment Chapter 13 plan.On de novo review, the panel identified no error in the bankruptcy court's conclusion that the attorney fees imposed on debtor by the state court are domestic support obligations under the bankruptcy code and are therefore not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(5). In this case, the bankruptcy court engaged in a specific and detailed analysis of the undisputed facts and legal authority. Therefore, confirmation of debtor's Sixth Amended Plan that provided for priority treatment of Flesner's attorney fee claims as domestic support obligations was appropriate. View "Carpenter v. Amos" on Justia Law

Central Valley filed suit against various defendants who either marketed or administered self-funded health care plans, alleging that defendants breached various fiduciary duties and engaged in various prohibited transactions in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. In regard to the 2015 health care plan, the court held that because Central Valley made the final payment decisions, AMPS and TBG did not have discretion over their compensation and were not fiduciaries. In regard to the 2016 health care plan, the court held that because none of Central Valley's allegations pertain to CDS's fiduciary duty of making benefit determinations on hospital and facility claims, Central Valley’s fiduciary duty claim against CDS fails. Furthermore, TBG, AMPS, and CDS did not act with discretion with respect to compensation, and thus no defendant became a fiduciary. Finally, the court rejected Central Valley's prohibited transactions claim. The court also affirmed the district court's award of attorney fees, holding that the district court properly balanced the Westerhaus factors and did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendants attorney's fees. View "Central Valley Ag Cooperative v. Leonard" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for three counts related to the receipt and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (a)(5)(B), (b)(1), and (b)(2). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for leave to file post-deadline pretrial motions in light of his knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to do so.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a limited number of child pornography images from the more than one thousand images seized from defendant's devices. The court noted that, although it might well have been a better practice to examine the images in question, the district court did not abuse its discretion by making its Federal Rule of Evidence 403 decision without having done so. In this case, the images were neither unfairly prejudicial nor needlessly cumulative. View "United States v. Blanks" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging a claim for unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that defendant had probable cause to arrest plaintiff where he had an outstanding arrest warrant at the time of arrest, and the warrant was valid. Furthermore, plaintiff was driving with a broken headlight in violation of Missouri law. The court explained that, although defendant told plaintiff he was under arrest for a DWI, defendant had probable cause based on the outstanding warrant or the broken headlight. Furthermore, an officer's wrongly-stated reason for an arrest does not nullify an otherwise lawful arrest, and a claim that defendant fabricated evidence about the arrest does not negate his probable cause at the time of the arrest. View "Wood v. Wooten" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, reporters with Al Jazeera America news network, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against an officer and the county, alleging civil rights claims stemming from their coverage of protests after the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The officer had deployed a tear-gas canister at plaintiffs while they were preparing for a live broadcast. The district court denied qualified immunity to the officer, permitting the reporters to proceed on their First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and state-law battery claims.Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the reporters, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the reporters were not engaged in unlawful activity when the officer fired on them, and thus the officer did not have arguable probable cause to use the tear-gas. The court explained that, based on the robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority, it is clearly established that using an arrest (that lacks arguable probable cause) to interfere with First Amendment activity is a constitutional violation. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. However, when the officer deployed the tear-gas, it was not clearly established that his acts were a seizure. Accordingly, the district court should have granted qualified immunity to the officer on the Fourth Amendment claim. Finally, the court concluded that the district court correctly denied summary judgment on the state-law claim. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Quraishi v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to cite any Eighth Circuit case considering probable cause under similar circumstances where an officer has probable cause to make a DWI arrest. Because there is no "precedent" or "controlling authority," the court looks for a "robust consensus of cases." The court explained that what constituted probable cause for a DWI arrest was not "sufficiently clear" at the time of arrest. Furthermore, a survey of DWI cases in Missouri demonstrates that even if defendant acted without arguable probable cause, existing law did not give him “fair warning” that his conduct was unconstitutional. In this case, it was not clearly established that defendant lacked arguable probable cause to believe that plaintiff had been driving based on the available facts: arriving alone, at the remote police station, early in the morning, keys in hand, to pick up another individual who had been arrested. Finally, the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's Rule 56(e)(1) and 59(e) motions. View "Kuessner v. Wooten" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Mike Campbell filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against Missouri state representative Cheri Toalson Reisch after she blocked him from her Twitter account, alleging that she violated the First Amendment by denying him the right to speak. The district court agreed with plaintiff, declared that Reisch had violated his rights, and ordered her to stop blocking plaintiff and others because of the content or viewpoint of their speech.The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that plaintiff is not entitled to section 1983 relief because Reisch was not acting under state law when she blocked him from her Twitter account. The court held that Reisch's account is the kind of unofficial account that the court envisioned in Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226, 235–36 (2d Cir. 2019). The court explained that no one seriously disputes that her account at least began life as a private account because Reisch was not a public official when she created it. Even if Reisch had been a public official at the time, the court would still hold that she had not created an official governmental account because she used it overwhelmingly for campaign purposes. The court thought that Reisch's Twitter account is more akin to a campaign newsletter than to anything else, and so it's Reisch's prerogative to select her audience and present her page as she sees fit. Therefore, Reisch's own First Amendment right to craft her campaign materials necessarily trumps Campbell's desire to convey a message on her Twitter page that she does not wish to convey, even if that message does not compete for room as it would, say, in a campaign newsletter. The court remanded for the district court to enter judgment in Reisch's favor. View "Campbell v. Reisch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the County, CCS, and other prison officials and healthcare providers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments. Plaintiff also alleges that two officers threatened him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff's allegations stemmed from complications resulting from treatment of his foot injuries.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of one defendant's motion to dismiss and summary judgment as to the other defendants. The court held that the district court properly granted the physician assistant's motion to dismiss where the amended complaint failed to sufficiently allege that the physician assistant knew that plaintiff had serious medical needs and was deliberately indifferent to them. In this case, the court accepted plaintiff's allegations as true, but not his legal conclusions. The court also held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's deliberate indifference claims as to the remaining defendants where plaintiff's claims are a mere disagreement with treatment decisions. The court further held that plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust his claims that prison guards threatened retaliation, and plaintiff cannot show that a reasonable inmate of ordinary firmness would have failed to file a grievance in his situation. View "East v. Minnehaha County" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for robbing an individual of personal property belonging to the United States. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for instructions on duress or coercion and/or voluntariness as he failed to meet his burden of proving the existence of duress/coercion by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, defendant's evidence amounts to a generalized and speculative fear of violence, and is insufficient to demonstrate the requisite showing of a present, imminent, and impending threat.Even if defendant had established a fear that was immediate and well-founded, the court explained that defendant's duress defense would still fail because he cannot show he had no reasonable, legal alternative to engaging in the robbery. Finally, upon careful review of the record, the court found that the court did not prohibit defendant from arguing his theory of defense. View "United States v. Sharron" on Justia Law