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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's restitution order and certain special conditions of defendant's supervised release imposed after he pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a child. The court found no error in the district court's restitution amount of $20,000, holding that the evidence supported the amount in light of the aggregate harm to the victim. The court also held that the special conditions -- including a requirement that defendant participate in sex offender treatment including psychological testing and polygraph examinations, a prohibition against contact with any minors without pre-approval, and a requirement that defendant seek prior approval before using temporary commercial lodging, such as a hotel or motel -- where reasonably related to both the offense of conviction and to defendant's history of sexual contact with minor females. View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner based on his claim that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial when it briefly closed the courtroom to spectators. The district court denied relief based on the ground that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.The court agreed and held that it was not objectively unreasonable for the Minnesota Supreme Court to deem it constitutional under the Sixth Amendment for the trial court to explain the parameters of an earlier public order on evidentiary issues in a brief nonpublic proceeding before the jury was sworn. View "Smith v. Titus" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's determination that the interested parties were equitably estopped from asserting ownership of machinery and equipment in debtor's bankruptcy case. In this case, the interested parties allowed the misrepresentations concerning debtor's assets to continue throughout the bankruptcy case and now seek to protect their alleged pecuniary interests. The court found that the interested parties' arguments lacked merit and were not properly before the district court. The court also affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of the interested parties' request for the bankruptcy court to alter or amend its ruling or for a new trial. View "Richards v. Rabo ArgiFinance, LLC" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was removed from the Board of Trustees of Drake University, he filed suit alleging Title IX retaliation, disability retaliation, and breach of contract. Plaintiff's removal stemmed from conflicts of interests following the University's findings that plaintiff's son was responsible for alleged sexual misconduct and expelled from the University.The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiff's removal from the Board cannot support a Title IX retaliation claim against the University. In this case, the Board was acting in a manner separate and distinct from the University itself and thus plaintiff cannot hold the University liable under Title IX for the separate decision of the Board regarding its own internal affairs. The court also held that plaintiff's claim that the University retaliated against him by prohibiting him from serving as his son's advocate during the campus hearings failed, where, at no time did the son request that his father serve as his personal representative under the Code of Conduct and that such request was denied. Furthermore, without a nexus, plaintiff's claim of Title IX retaliation by the University failed. The court held that none of the actions plaintiff alleges the University took against him in retaliation were part of an education program or activity, and therefore he lacks standing to bring suit under 20 U.S.C. 1681(a). The court declined to expand Title IX's reach.The court held that plaintiff's disability retaliation claim failed because the Board voted to remove plaintiff due to his pervasive conflict of interest with the University and only after plaintiff refused to take a leave of absence from the Board. Finally, the court held that plaintiff's contract claim failed because plaintiff served on the Board as an unpaid, uncompensated volunteer. View "Rossley v. Drake University" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that, although the district court properly applied a four-level increase for possession of a firearm "in connection with another felony offense" under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), but that a two-level increase for "using a minor to commit a crime" under USSG 3B1.4 should not have applied.In this case, the evidence showed only that defendant engaged in an arm's-length transaction with a minor. The court held that this mere joint participation in an offense as a partner, does not amount to "use" of a minor "to commit the offense" of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial in an action seeking damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, and rejected his contention that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to provide the jury with a specific damages instruction. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a specific instruction based on Eighth Circuit Manual of Model Instruction 15.70's optional list of damages because plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to support a claim of future damages.In this case, the district court's generic instructions permitted plaintiff to present his theory of the case—that BNSF breached a duty it owed to him causing his shoulder injury. Furthermore, the district court's instructions did not impact plaintiff's substantial rights. View "Hall v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

SPP, a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), is authorized by the Commission to provide electric transmission services across a multi-state region. Pursuant to SPP's license-plate rate design, SPP is divided into different zones, and customers in each zone pay rates based on the cost of transmission facilities in that zone.The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review brought by NPPD of FERC's approval of SPP's placement of Tri-State into Zone 17. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Commission's finding that Tri-State's placement into Zone 17 was just and reasonable. In this case, because the Commission stated plausible and articulable reasons for why the costs and benefits were comparable in this case, the court could not say that its cost-causation analysis was arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the Commission did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in deciding that Tri-State's placement into Zone 17 was just and reasonable. View "Nebraska Public Power District v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

After a truck driver filed claims against his employer's insurer to recover for an injury he suffered when loading a truck, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Minnesota law does not invalidate the insurer's "moving property exclusion." In this case, because plaintiff was not occupying, entering into, or alighting from the truck, his injury did not arise out of the "maintenance or use" of the truck. Therefore, Minnesota law did not require the insurer to cover the employer's liability. View "Great West Casualty Co. v. Decker" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against ISC, alleging that ISC transported plaintiff, a pretrial detainee subject to extradition, for eight continuous days across twelve states, with only momentary breaks for bathroom use.The Eighth Circuit held that ISC is not entitled to summary judgment on the current record based on the standards applicable to pretrial detainees under Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). In this case, prior to being found guilty of any offense, plaintiff was subjected to painful, unsanitary, and severe conditions and restraints for over one week. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the court held that the conditions of plaintiff's confinement were far from de minimis and a jury could reasonably conclude that, on this record, the conditions were arbitrary or excessive when compared to the government's perceived goal of securely transporting plaintiff to his destination. View "Stearns v. Inmate Services Corp." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to Tina Jimerson and John Brown, Jr., two Arkansas prisoners serving life sentences for murder and aggravated robbery.The court held that Jimerson's Youngblood and actual innocence claims are timely under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(D), but her Brady claim is not; Brown's claims were timely under section 2244(d)(1)(D); and Brown and Jimerson have made an adequate showing excusing procedural default as to their Youngblood claims. The court also held that, under these particular circumstances where the prosecutor and law enforcement acted in concert to not only conceal the contents of the recording but also effectively concealed the fact that a recorded conversation took place, an adverse inference may be drawn and it is appropriate to weigh the value in favor of Brown and Jimerson. Therefore, under the O'Neal standard, the court is required to treat the constitutional violation as if it had substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury's verdicts. The court reversed in part as to certain claims and affirmed in part as to certain claims, ultimately affirming the grant of habeas relief. View "Jimerson v. Payne" on Justia Law