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

Plaintiff filed suit against a police officer under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officer used excessive force and seeking damages for injuries sustained during plaintiff's arrest. The district court denied the officer's motions for summary judgment.The Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court that, on balance, the challenged use of force was unreasonable, but that the question is not beyond debate, and the right at issue was thus not clearly established. In this case, officers were attempting to arrest plaintiff for his role in a brutal beating, plaintiff fled from officers at high speed for several miles while armed with a handgun and ammunition, and a foot race ensued after the car chase where five officers pinned plaintiff. While the officers pinned plaintiff, plaintiff refused to surrender his hands and the officers reasonably believed that plaintiff's position posed a threat to officer safety, because at least one of his hands was unrestrained in an area of his body where weapons could be concealed. Therefore, the court held that it was objectively reasonable for officers to apply some amount of supplemental force in order to gain control of plaintiff's hands and to restrain him. However, the court held that the officer's use of force was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court stated that a stomp on the ankle with sufficient force to break it was excessive when the legitimate objective was to facilitate restraint of plaintiff's hands while he was pinned to the ground by several officers.The court stated that a number of the relevant factors supported the use of force, so reasonableness was a matter of degree, and qualified immunity protects officers from the specter of lawsuits and damages liability for mistaken judgments in gray areas. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of qualified immunity. View "Shelton v. Stevens" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err by imposing sentencing enhancements for possessing three to seven firearms and possessing a firearm capable of accepting a high capacity magazine. In this case, the evidence was sufficient to show constructive or joint possession, if not actual possession of the firearms. The court also held that the district court did not err by imposing an enhancement for possession of the firearm in connection with another felony offense where the firearm facilitated or had the potential of facilitating drug possession. Finally, the court held that any error in imposing any of the enhancements was harmless because the district court expressly stated it would have adopted the sentence regardless of its rulings on the enhancements. View "United States v. Fisher" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a petition for review of the Commissioner's denial of plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court held that, although the record provides ample support for determinations regarding the severity and limiting effect of most of plaintiff's impairments, further development is required as to the functional limitations on walking and standing. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Noerper v. Saul" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 or more grams of methamphetamine. The court rejected defendant's claim of evidentiary error in admitting Exhibit 113, a chart showing records of all contacts between phone numbers identified with defendant and others. The court held that, even if the exhibit was admitted without proper foundation, the error was harmless. Furthermore, like Exhibit 113, the contents of Exhibits 114 and 125 duplicate other evidence and testimony and any error in admitting them was harmless.The court also held that the district court did not err by applying a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice for threatening a witness; defendant's 300 month sentence was substantively reasonable; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in varying downward from the guidelines. View "United States v. Vera-Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings and to deny his motion to remand. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the vast majority of petitioner's arguments concerning his motion to reopen his asylum and withholding of removal claims because they merely constitute a brief in opposition to the BIA's factual findings.In regard to the CAT claim, the court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that he had not shown facts that would likely change the result in the case on account of a material change in country conditions. In regard to the motion for remand, the court lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner's arguments to the extent they concern his asylum and withholding of removal claims; petitioner's claims that the BIA committed legal error lacked merit; and the court cannot say the BIA abused its discretion in determining that further proceedings on his motion to reopen his CAT claim were not warranted by the newly presented evidence attached to his motion to remand. Finally, the court rejected petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process claim. View "Sharif v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's contention that his three prior Minnesota robbery convictions did not qualify as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act is foreclosed by Eighth Circuit decisions issued while his appeal was pending. The court also held that defendant's challenge to his conviction, contending that his indictment violated his due process rights, falls within the scope of the appeal waiver in his knowing and voluntary plea agreement, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. View "United States v. Jackson-Bey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Toyota in strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty for injuries she sustained in a single-vehicle roll over accident. Plaintiff alleged that her 1997 Toyota 4Runner was unreasonably prone to roll over and that its seatbelt system failed to restrain her during the accident.Given plaintiff's concession that there was no evidence relating to the design of the seatbelt and that her claims instead centered on FMVSS 209, the Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not err in determining that she had abandoned her claim for strict liability. The court declined to reach plaintiff's evidentiary arguments because she failed to preserve them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possessing a firearm as a felon. The court held that defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires him to develop facts outside of the record before the court and so the court declined to review it; hearsay testimony about the ownership of the gun was properly admitted under the invited error doctrine; defendant has not shown that any Rehaif error affected his substantial rights; defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable where the district court explained its decision to give defendant a sentence at the top of his guidelines range; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion and considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the widow and executrix of her late husband's estate, filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging a claim of medical malpractice on behalf of the estate and alleging individually a claim of wrongful death. The claims stemmed from injuries her husband suffered during a fall, shortly before his death, while hospitalized in a Veterans Affairs hospital.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the medical malpractice claim in the absence of a breach of the applicable standard of medical care. In this case, substantial evidence supported the district court's factual findings with respect to the husband's condition on the morning of the fall and the care the nurses provided him to and after his fall. The court also held that the district court did not err in dismissing the wrongful death claim in the absence of an underlying tort claim. View "Howard v. United States" on Justia Law

At issue in this case is whether a debtor must object to a proof of claim filed by the IRS by serving it on the Attorney General and the local United States Attorney? Or is it good enough to simply mail it directly to the IRS?The Eighth Circuit held that, according to the plain language of Bankruptcy Rule 3007, an objection need only be mailed to the "claimant." In this case, once debtor fulfilled this requirement, he did enough to bring the United States within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Therefore, the bankruptcy court and the district court erred by finding that debtor needed to serve the objection on both the Attorney General and the local United States Attorney. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Nicolaus v. United States" on Justia Law