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

Officer Baker, on school patrol, motioned for Garcia to stop and shouted for him to slow down. Garcia responded that he was going the speed limit. Garcia drove away. Later, in the afternoon, Garcia again saw Baker at the school. He extended his hand and raised his middle finger. Baker followed Garcia, called for backup, and pulled Garcia over. Baker told Garcia that there were children present and that his actions constituted disorderly conduct. Baker repeatedly asked for Garcia’s license but he ignored her requests and demanded that she call her supervisor. Other officers arrived. Baker told Garcia to get out his “g*d d**n D.L.” Garcia yelled that he was “protected by the First Amendment!” Baker opened the door and grabbed Garcia as he stepped out of the vehicle, placed him against his vehicle, handcuffed him, stating that he was being detained for disorderly conduct. Baker held Garcia in the squad car for seven minutes and issued a citation. As Garcia left, he yelled, “f**k you.” Baker later stated that she had noted a license plate violation. Garcia later apologized in writing, took a driving course, and entered into an “Agreement to Suspend Prosecution.” Garcia's complaint with the New Hope Police Department was not sustained.In Garcia’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court granted the defendants summary judgment, citing qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit reversed with respect to Garcia’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Baker. Genuine disputes of material fact exist; a reasonable jury could find that Baker lacked probable cause to pull Garcia over. The court affirmed in part. Given the totality of the circumstances, the officers’ use of force in handcuffing Garcia was objectively reasonable. View "Garcia v. City of New Hope" on Justia Law

Harris pleaded guilty to first-degree assault. In 2012, the Circuit Court of Scott County, Missouri imposed a 15-year sentence, ordering that it run concurrently with Harris’s recently-imposed 25-year federal sentence, imposed after he pleaded guilty to interference with commerce by threat or violence, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and being a convicted felon in possession of ammunition. His federal sentence, which was silent on whether it was to be served consecutively or concurrently, was later reduced to 183 months, in light of the Supreme Court’s Johnson decision.Harris is in state custody, receiving credit only against his state sentence. He will begin serving his federal sentence after he completes his state sentence and is transferred to the Bureau of Prisons. Despite the state court’s order, Harris will serve consecutive, not concurrent, sentences.Harris sought habeas relief, 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court denied relief. The Eighth Circuit reversed. Harris alleged sufficient facts to apprise the court and the state of a distinct basis for his claim—that Plea Counsel advised that his 25-year federal sentence would “swallow” up any state sentence he would receive for pleading guilty to assault. On remand, the district court must determine whether Harris procedurally defaulted that claim. View "Harris v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Herrera's husband fraudulently used the identity of a lawful permanent U.S. resident (LPR) to become a citizen. Herrera obtained LPR status as the wife of a citizen and became a citizen. Herrera's four children are U.S. citizens. In 2011, Herrera was convicted of second-degree theft. The government discovered Herrera’s false statement. She pleaded guilty to naturalization fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1425(a). The district court revoked her citizenship and restored her to LPR status, 8 U.S.C. 1451(e).If an alien commits fraud or misrepresents a material fact to gain a benefit under the immigration laws, she may be deported, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i); 1227(a)(1)(A). Herrera sought a waiver available to aliens who committed immigration fraud but are the parent of a citizen and separately sought cancellation of removal as an LPR. DHS added a charge of removability for convictions of crimes involving moral turpitude based on Herrera's theft conviction, then withdrew the charge of removability for immigration fraud. The BIA affirmed that she was ineligible for a fraud waiver because she was no longer charged under the fraud provision and was ineligible for cancellation of removal because she had obtained her LPR status by fraud.The Eighth Circuit denied relief, rejecting Herrera’s argument that DHS could not withdraw the fraud charge because it had already been sustained by the IJ. The government is permitted to adjust the charges against an alien during the immigration court case. View "Gonzalez v. Rosen" on Justia Law

Ellison, remodeling Stephen’s house, noticed a USB drive on the toilet tank. Ellison had researched hidden recording devices following a break-in and recognized it as a hidden camera. Ellison took the USB home but did not view its contents. The next morning, Ellison returned to Stephen’s home and discovered a young boy asleep. Stephen, a youth basketball coach, arrived with another boy. Returning home, Ellison viewed the USB’s contents, finding multiple videos depicting children secretly recorded in various stages of undress. Ellison delivered the USB to the Monticello Police. The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation took possession of the USB, obtained a warrant, and viewed its contents. A warranted search of Stephen’s homes uncovered more secret recording devices and a hard drive containing approximately 400 visual depictions of nude minor boys, including images of Stephen molesting unconscious victims. Indicted for sexually exploiting a child, 18 U.S.C. 2251(a), possessing child pornography, section 2252(a)(4)(B), and transporting child pornography, section 2252(a)(1), Stephen unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion and Stephen’s 2,160-month sentence. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to private-citizen searches unless that private citizen acted as a government agent. Ellison was acting out of civic duty; even if Ellison intended to assist law enforcement, it would not be enough to establish he was a government agent. The police chief had probable cause to take the USB from Ellison. View "United States v. Stephen" on Justia Law

Aspen agreed to pay FBR, an investment banking firm, 1.25 percent of the aggregate consideration paid to Aspen’s shareholders in the event of an acquisition or merger. Markel subsequently became the parent of Aspen and agreed to pay Aspen shareholders $135,700,000 in cash plus additional compensation based on the future value of Aspen’s business. FBR provided a fairness opinion and received 1.25 percent of the cash consideration. Aspen shareholders obtained “contingent value rights” to the additional compensation (CVR Holders) and challenged Markel’s valuation of the CVRs. The Delaware District Court has not yet issued a valuation opinion. FBR indicated its intent to claim 1.25 percent of the additional compensation.The CVR Holders sought a declaratory judgment that FBR is not entitled to further payment. FBR removed to the District of Nebraska, which dismissed the action because the CVR Holders failed to establish Article III standing. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. While the Holders' contract-based claims to a share of the additional compensation may be a legally protected interest, they have not suffered an injury that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent. The final amount of the additional compensation has not been determined; no payments have been made. The Holders' only injury in fact is not fairly attributable to FBR asserting a competing claim, and cannot be redressed at this time by the judicial decision they seek. The additional compensation will be paid by Markel, a non-party. View "Yeransian v. B. Riley & Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against various officials of an Arkansas jail, where he had been held as a pretrial detainee. After he was transferred to a facility in Texas, some of the defendants moved to stay the case. Although the case had already entered discovery, a magistrate judge granted the stay. Plaintiff then filed an objection to the motion to stay and a motion for relief from the magistrate order. The district court never acted on the motions, referred back to the magistrate judge, who then denied relief.The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal of a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive pretrial matter. In this case, without a decision of a district court, this court lacked jurisdiction to proceed any further. View "Devine v. Walker" on Justia Law

After Daniel Elrod was shot and killed by a former Omaha police officer, plaintiff filed suit against the officer and others under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law. The district court granted summary judgment to the officer in his individual capacity only, ruling that the former officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 claim. After the district court's summary judgment decision, plaintiff abandoned her case and did not respond to subsequent motions or discovery requests.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute, finding (1) no abuse of discretion in dismissing plaintiff's case for failure to prosecute, (2) the dismissal for failure to prosecute bars appellate review of earlier entered interlocutory orders, and (3) plaintiff's failure to analyze in her brief issues related to other decisions identified in her Notice of Appeal constitutes a waiver. View "Beadle v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

After the school districts sought modification of existing desegregation consent decrees to allow their exemption from Arkansas's Public School Choice Act, Ark. Code. Ann. 6–18–1906, the district court granted the motions and modified the consent decrees to explicitly limit the transfer of students between school districts. The Department appealed, alleging that the modification imposed an impermissible interdistrict remedy.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that there was a substantial change in Arkansas law after the consent decrees were enacted and the district court's modification was not an impermissible interdistrict remedy. The court explained that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering and crediting evidence of white flight when it determined that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred warranting modification of the consent decrees. Furthermore, based on the court's review of the record and the large degree of deference given to the district court, the court could not find that the district court abused its discretion in modifying the consent decrees. View "United States v. Arkansas Department of Education" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action against CPAY, alleging breach of contract, state-law fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Plaintiffs, a class of over 160,000 small retailers using CPAY for credit card processing, allege that CPAY misrepresented a number of fees, added fees with no value to retailers, and inflated fees without prior approval from issuing banks.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's certification of the proposed class, holding that the district court engaged in a sufficiently rigorous analysis of Federal Rule 23 certification and made specific findings of fact. The court also held that the district court did not err in determining that common questions predominate; that plaintiffs' claims are typical of class members; and that plaintiffs will represent class interests adequately. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a class action is the superior mechanism to try this case. View "Custom Hair Designs by Sandy v. Central Payment Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's admission of evidence over plaintiffs' objection and denial of plaintiffs' motion for a new trial in a products liability action brought against Crown, a forklift manufacturer. The court applied Huff v. Heckendorn Manufacturing Co., 991 F.2d 464, 467 (8th Cir. 1993), and concluded that plaintiffs waived their challenge to the admission of the video simulations where they preemptively introduced the simulations into evidence. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. View "Reinard v. Crown Equipment Corporation" on Justia Law