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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's successive motion to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court held that petitioner did not meet the requirements of section 2255(h)(2) for filing a successive motion, because Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2557 (2015), did not undermine the court's conclusion on direct appeal that three of petitioner's prior convictions qualified as violent felonies under the force clause or the enumerated offenses clause. That Johnson might have eliminated a fourth conviction, or an unnecessary alternative ground for counting the three qualifying convictions, did not entitle petitioner to pursue a successive motion. The court therefore held that, without showing the retroactive decision in Johnson justified relief, petitioner could not challenge his sentence based on intervening decisions with not retroactive effect. View "Forrest v. United States" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed the bankruptcy court's grant of the Banks' motion for summary judgment challenging the validity of the other parties' liens and asserting the priority of its own lien in debtor's 2017 crops. In this case, it was difficult to determine from the record precisely what the bankruptcy court considered in reaching its conclusion that no genuine issues of material fact existed which would preclude it from granting the Bank's motion for summary judgment, or the analysis the bankruptcy court undertook. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further findings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)'s directive to specify the reasons for its ruling, or in the alternative, to reconsider the issue on the existence of the Solberg Farms partnership. View "Zaitz Trust, LLC v. Bremer Bank, NA" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging that a highway patrol trooper used excessive force against her in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that the trooper did not violate plaintiff's clearly established constitutional right when he threw or shoved her to the ground after she disobeyed his repeated instructions to return to his car, was uncooperative when he grabbed her and told her to turn around, and repeatedly tried to pull her arm away from his grasp. Furthermore, plaintiff had been drinking and driving erratically, and the dashcam video showed that their struggle took place on the shoulder of a dark highway, while several cars drove by. View "Murphy v. Engelhart" on Justia Law

DLC filed a 42 U.SC. 1983 action against defendant, the Director of the South Dakota Division of Banking, alleging that license revocation without a pre-deprivation hearing deprived DLC of its procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of absolute or qualified immunity and its decision that the quick action exception to a pre-deprivation hearing was not applicable.The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because DLC failed to show a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established. The court held that there was no procedural due process violation where DLC was on notice that the Division was investigating the lawfulness of its new loan product, DLC was afforded an opportunity to provide additional information addressing the Division's concerns, and the revocation order had no more of an effect on DLC's business than the simultaneously issued cease and desist order. View "Dollar Loan Center of South Dakota, LLC v. Afdahl" on Justia Law

In 1988, petitioner filed an application for Temporary Resident Status as a Special Agricultural Worker. Over thirty years later, he petitioned to hold that the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) erred in denying his appeal for failure to comply with the agency deadline.The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review and held that equitable tolling was not appropriate on the facts of petitioner's case. The court held that, regardless of whether petitioner was living at the record address at the time INS sent the notice, his failure to receive it was not an extraordinary circumstance because either updating the agency with a correct address or more closely monitoring the mail were within his control. Furthermore, even if petitioner could establish he did not receive the notice due to a genuinely extraordinary, unavoidable circumstance, the extended lapses in time were evidence that he failed to diligently pursue his rights. View "Capiz-Fabian v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of bank robbery, Hobbs Act robbery, two counts of brandishing a firearm during those crimes of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial given the attenuation between the prospective juror's remarks and defendant, and the deference due to the district court's assessment of the circumstances.The court also held that an officer's nonresponsive answer, stating that defendant refused to speak with police at the scene of the arrest, violated the Due Process Clause. Furthermore, any violation of the rule in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), did not affect defendant's substantial rights. Finally, the court declined to address defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the first instance. View "United States v. Pope" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. In this case, plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against defendant, a detective, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations committed in connection with an arrest.The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that defendant's arguments all rest on his contention that the district court erred in its determination that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether plaintiff was incapacitated when he tased plaintiff a second time. The court held that the district court's determination was not blatantly contradicted by the record, and analyzing the record to resolve the parties' dispute over the circumstances in which plaintiff was tased a second time was beyond the court's limited review. View "Graham v. Klipsch" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of supervised release conditions after defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to eliminate the drug testing and substance abuse treatment requirements in order to prevent further drug abuse and to provide for correctional treatment and rehabilitation. The court also held that the district court was well within its discretion to deny defendant's motion to modify two special conditions of supervised release regarding the Hell's Angels special conditions, because they were reasonably related to the sentencing factors, involved no greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary, and were consistent with the Sentencing Commission's pertinent policy statements. View "United States v. Romig" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate at the ADC, filed suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking injunctive relief against ADC officials for allegedly refusing to provide him with a daily serving of "halal" meat in accord with his personal religious beliefs.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of an injunction in favor of plaintiff, holding that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the PLRA. In this case, plaintiff was required to exhaust ADC's proper grievance procedures regardless of the forms of relief potentially available under the Religious Diet Policy. Furthermore, the court rejected plaintiff's contention that the Religious Diet Policy was, in and of itself, a proper and complete grievance procedure. View "Muhammad v. Mayfield" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of petitioner's motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). In this case, the district court determined that petitioner's sentence imposed on his firearm count was based on the Armed Career Criminal Act's unconstitutionally vague residual clause.The court held that the district court's application of the incorrect standard was a legal error that amounted to an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, because the error was a constitutional one, petitioner was entitled to relief because the error was not harmless. Therefore, the sentencing error identified by the district court would prejudice petitioner, entitling him to relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 and potentially entitling him to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The panel remanded for further consideration under Quarles v. U.S., 139 S. Ct. 1872 (2019). View "Raymond v. United States" on Justia Law