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

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a deputy's motion for summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging that the deputy used excessive force while arresting plaintiff. The court held that the deputy did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment, and thus he was entitled to qualified immunity. In this case, it was not clearly established at the time that a deputy was forbidden to use a takedown maneuver to arrest a suspect who ignored the deputy's instruction to "get back here" and continued to walk away from the officer. View "Kelsay v. Ernst" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's resentence imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Stitt, 139 S. Ct. 399, 408 (2018), that defendant's prior Arkansas burglary convictions qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Therefore, defendant had the requisite three or more convictions necessary to qualify as an armed career criminal. The court vacated its prior opinion and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Sims" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the constitutionality of an Arkansas zoning law that prevents adult-oriented businesses from opening within 1,000 feet of schools and other places frequented by children. The court held that Adam and Eve, an adult toy superstore, has not engaged in speech and therefore cannot state a claim under the First Amendment. In this case, Adam and Eve disavowed any express conduct; cited no authority that selling sexually-oriented devices was speech; and expressly and repeatedly rejected that it was an adult-oriented business similar to those found in prior precedent, each of which engaged in protected speech.The court also held that the zoning law was not unconstitutionally vague and does not violate equal protection. The court held that a plaintiff whose conduct is clearly proscribed cannot raise a successful vagueness claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment for lack of notice, and a substantial portion of Adam and Eve's business involves selling items the statute reaches. Finally, Adam and Eve failed to show that the Act treated it differently than similarly situated entities or lacked a rational basis. View "Adam and Eve Jonesboro, LLC v. Perrin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the United States in this civil forfeiture action. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by striking claimant's claim, because he willfully disobeyed the discovery orders. The court also held that defendant's motions to dismiss and constitutional arguments were moot. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income to plaintiff. The court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff's work as a receptionist constituted "substantial gainful activity." In this case, she worked predominately as a receptionist, was paid for the work, and performed work that plainly involved significant physical or mental activities. The court held that plaintiff performed activities beyond her core duties as a receptionist only occasionally, and her responsibilities as a receptionist alone constituted substantial gainful activity. View "Sloan v. Saul" 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 agreed with the district court that defendant's prior conviction for aggravated assault in Arkansas was categorically a violent felony under the force clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The court also held that defendant's prior South Carolina conviction for pointing a firearm at another person was a violent felony.The court also held that the district court's imposition of a special condition requiring defendant to abstain from alcohol use while undergoing substance abuse treatment was reasonable and within the district court's substantial discretion. In this case, the condition was not a total ban and was aimed at curbing addictive behavior during substance abuse treatment. View "United States v. Hataway" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that the district court erred in denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity to the officer who shot and killed the decedent during a police chase. The court held that the district court failed to meet it threshold duty to make a thorough determination of the officer's claim of qualified immunity, and thus the case must return to the district court for a second look. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded. The court also remanded for reconsideration of the officer's claim of official immunity. View "N.S. v. Thompson" on Justia Law

After the jury awarded damages to a sexual assault victim who was under the care of New Horizon, RSUI filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy's "Sexual Abuse or Molestation" exclusion barred coverage for the underlying damage award above Travelers' policy limits. The district court granted summary judgment for New Horizon.The Eighth Circuit held that RSUI, an excess liability insurer that did not control the defense of its insured in the underlying suit, must be afforded an opportunity to prove in a subsequent coverage action that the jury award included damages for uncovered as well as covered claims. If the insurer sustains that burden, the court held that the district court must then allocate the award between covered and uncovered claims. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded. View "RSUI Indemnity Co. v. New Horizon Kids Quest, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Warren Unilube's motion for summary judgment in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging a race-based claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Under the McDonnell Douglass framework, the court held that plaintiff made a prima facie case of discrimination because he was a member of a protected group and was terminated. Furthermore, he was qualified for his position.However, the court held that the employer articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff's discharge based on plaintiff's performance related deficiencies. Finally, the court held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Warren's reasons for his termination were pretextual. View "Beasley v. Warren Unilube, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The court held that there was ample evidence to support a finding of possession with intent to distribute, and there was no clear error in applying the four-level increase under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The court also held that there was no clear in applying a two-level increase under USSG 3C1.2 for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer. View "United States v. Davidson" on Justia Law