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

Defendant pleaded guilt to one count of bank robbery and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon, and was sentenced to 216 months in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by retroactively increasing the severity of his punishment based on an "unforeseeable" judicial decision in United States v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 2018) (en banc), that was filed after the commission of his firearms offense. The Eighth Circuit held that the en banc decision in Swopes was not so unexpected as to raise due process concerns. View "United States v. Dunlap" on Justia Law

Where a plaintiff seeks damages based on alleged illegal actions of a municipal official, there is no authority to award damages against the municipality when the jury concludes that the official committed no wrong. Plaintiff filed suit against the city and the mayor under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants discriminated against him based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the mayor but against the city.The Eighth Circuit reversed and held that, because there was no race discrimination violation of section 1981, the city could not be held liable for damages under section 1983. In this case, plaintiff did not challenge the jury's finding that the mayor did not discriminate against him based on race and there was insufficient evidence that any other city official, or combination of the mayor or other municipal officers or employees, discriminated against plaintiff based on race. View "Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff" on Justia Law

After plaintiff suffered serious injuries from falling off a Vulcan ladder, he and his wife filed suit against Vulcan and GP. The jury rejected plaintiffs' design defect claim, but found that defendants breached an express warranty. The jury awarded plaintiff damages and the district court denied defendants' post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, a new trial.The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that plaintiff's expert was qualified and his testimony was properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 702; the expert provided a sufficient case-specific basis to support his opinion and he did not simply speculate on causation after a great deal of prodding; GP waived its statute of limitations defense; and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict on the breach of contract claim; defendants waived their remaining arguments; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' motion for a new trial. View "Klingenberg v. Vulcan Ladder USA, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal because he sustained a prior conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude when he was convicted of theft by receiving in violation of Nebraska law. The court also held that Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019), foreclosed petitioner's claim that neither the IJ nor the BIA had subject matter jurisdiction over his removal proceedings, because the initial notice to appear served on petitioner did not include information about when and where to appear. View "Inzunza Reyna v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The court held that Johnson did not justify relief in this case, because defendant's prior conviction for first degree assault qualified as a violent felony under the force clause. Therefore, defendant was not sentenced based on the residual clause and failed to satisfy the requirements for proceeding with a successive motion under section 2255(h)(2). View "Unverzagt v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and their children against the social workers involved in their cases and two of their DHS supervisors, alleging violations of their constitutional rights. The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiffs had standing to seek damages, to the extent they did so, against the individual defendants where plaintiffs' injuries were fairly traceable to defendants. However, plaintiffs lacked standing to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief, which they sought as remedies for their facial attack on the constitutionality of the relevant statutes, because the injury was too speculative to form the basis for the relief sought. The court upheld the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' facial challenge to the relevant statutes, but remanded with instructions to dismiss the claim without prejudice.On the merits, the court held that plaintiffs' damages claims against social workers for failure to receive prompt post-deprivation hearings failed, because the social workers did not contribute to any subsequent delays, considering they lacked the authority to file ex parte petitions or to schedule hearings on state-court dockets. Furthermore, the court could not say that a policy or custom the supervisors created or applied, or their alleged failure to train or supervise, caused plaintiffs' harm. However, the court held that the district court erred in applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to plaintiffs' claim that the social workers used ex parte proceedings containing knowingly false allegations, because the state court never issued any judgments in the case. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to consider the claims on the merits. View "Webb v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit joined the majority of circuits and held that a potential violation of the right to proceed pro se does not, in and of itself, render a plea involuntary. Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and then appealed, challenging the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. The court held that defendant waived his right to bring his Sixth Amendment claim where the district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary. In this case, although the district court may have violated defendant's right to self-representation, he was barred from bringing his appeal on this record. View "United States v. Dewberry" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of three counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of two witnesses that claimed they were sexually assaulted by defendant in order to establish a pattern of behavior; defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses; and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion for mistrial where, considering the nature of the charged offenses and the evidence against defendant, a blurted comment that he had previously committed a parole violation was not the sort of evidence that would create an overwhelming probability that the jury would be unable to follow the curative instruction.However, the court held that defendant had a constitutionally protected opportunity for effective cross-examination regarding the victim's PTSD testimony, and the court was unable to determine whether the failure to allow access to the records was a permissible limitation on cross-examination or whether defendant was denied access to information that might dramatically undermine the testimony of his accuser, the sole eyewitness to the assault. Accordingly, the court remanded the case for the limited purpose of conducting an in camera review of the records to determine the appropriate course of action. View "United States v. Arias" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for relief under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Although petitioner concedes that his petition was untimely, he argued that his claim should be equitably tolled.The court held that petitioner's failure to receive a letter from his attorney stating that she would not file a claim on his behalf, and his failure to follow up, did not amount to extraordinary circumstances requiring equitable tolling. Even if petitioner could show an extraordinary circumstance, he would not benefit from equitable tolling because he was not reasonably diligent in pursuing his claims. View "Chachanko v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Union Pacific in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA).In regard to plaintiff's discrimination claim, the court held that plaintiff was not qualified for a dispatcher position as a matter of law because she was unable to work mandatory overtime and Union Pacific's earlier willingness to accommodate a two-month restriction did not create a genuine issue of fact about whether availability for overtime was an essential function of the position. In regard to the sex and pregnancy discrimination claims, the court held that plaintiff suffered no adverse action when her supervisor denied her requested training or commented on the length of her breast pumping breaks, and the evidence did not give rise to an inference of discrimination in any event. In regard to the race discrimination claim, the court held that plaintiff's proffered comparators were not similarly situated because they were able to work overtime. View "McNeil v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law