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

Plaintiff, a minor, filed suit against the SWAT team officers, the detectives, and the Board under 42 U.S.C. 1983, after she suffered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from the blast of a flash-bang grenade. In this case, even though the SWAT team knew the suspect was already in custody, they broke open the screen door of the suspect's residence and threw a flash-bang grenade into the living room of the home before a young woman could open the door with the keys she was holding in her hand. The only people inside where three women and a two year old girl. The girl suffered PTSD from the officers' use of the flash-bang grenade.The Eighth Circuit held that the SWAT team officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because any reasonable officer would have known the use a flash-bang grenade under these circumstances constituted excessive force. It was clearly established at the time that use of a flash-bang grenade was unreasonable where officers have no basis to believe they will face a threat of violence and they unreasonably fail to ascertain whether there are any innocent bystanders in the area where the grenade is deployed. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court also held that detectives are entitled to summary judgment because there was probable cause to support the search warrant, even considering the omitted information, and because their decision to use a SWAT team, regardless of whether it was reasonable, did not violate clearly established law. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the detectives. Finally, the court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of summary judgment to the Board, and the court dismissed the appeal as to the Board. View "Z. J. v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment sentencing defendant to death for his role in murdering an inmate. The court affirmed the district court's decision not to hold an Atkins hearing and not to consider whether defendant satisfied the other factors for intellectual disability, regardless of whether he waived his arguments, because defendant did not show the condition onset before he was 18; there was no Miranda error by admitting evidence at trial of defendant's refusal to submit to an IQ test; there was no error in refusing to instruct the jury on defendant's brain damage mitigating factor; any error in admitting incriminating statements made to the government's psychiatrist was invited and the court will not reverse on that basis; footprint evidence and forensic blood evidence was properly admitted; the district court correctly exercised its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury that defendant's rebuttal evidence was a mitigating factor; and the district court did not err by admitting evidence of the BOP's administrative policies and costs for future dangerousness.The court also held that there was no error in defendant's court-imposed absence during certain jury ministerial matters; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting BOP reports; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting different versions of defendant's prior kidnapping and rape offenses; the district court did not err in submitting future dangerousness to the jury; the district court did not abuse its discretion during voir dire on mental health issues; and the court rejected defendant's remaining claims regarding lack of individualized voir dire, separate capital sentencing proceedings, standard for weighing factors, and arbitrariness arguments. View "United States v. Coonce" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Union Pacific in an action brought by plaintiff against the employer, alleging disparate treatment and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff suffered from chronic back pain and wanted to take time off as necessary and to receive 24 hours of rest per shift (between shifts).The court held that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, because job attendance is an essential function of a Union Pacific Locomotive Engineer and plaintiff could not perform this essential function with or without reasonable accommodation. View "Higgins v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's conclusion that petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status because he had previously provided material support to a terrorist organization. The court held that petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the material support bar did not apply. In this case, he failed to show that the Movement of Democratic Forces of Casamance (MFDC) he supported was not a terrorist organization, or that he did not know and should not reasonably have known that MFDC was a terrorist organization when he supported it. Finally, collateral estoppel and the law-of-the-case doctrine did not apply because the issue was not previously determined by a valid and final judgment. View "N'Diaye v. Barr" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Hispanic residents of Hastings, filed suit alleging a variety of state and federal law claims against various city and county employees, the State of Nebraska, Adams County, and the City of Hastings. Plaintiffs were arrested on charges of conspiracy and witness tampering for their alleged actions in the aftermath of a domestic disturbance in Hastings, and the charges were eventually dismissed.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court had jurisdiction over the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims and the second amended complaint was properly before the court. The court declined to address the statute of limitations question because the second amended complaint did not meet federal pleading standards; the district court did not err in dismissing the claims against the Officer Defendants where the pleadings consisted almost entirely of non-specific conclusory allegations; the district court committed no error in dismissing the claims against the Doe Defendants where the second amended complaint did not sufficiently allege who they were, what they allegedly did, their positions were for the city, or any other facts that would permit them to be noticed or identified through discovery; and the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiffs' motion to amend or alter the judgment. View "Perez v. John and Jane Does 1-10" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Northport in a wrongful death action brought by plaintiff, Mark, as the representative of the estate of his deceased father. Another son, Matt, signed the admission agreement, which included an arbitration agreement, at the residential rehabilitation center owned by Northport. Northport sought to compel arbitration and the district court granted the motion. Mark appealed, asserting that the district court misused the third-party beneficiary theory when no underlying agreement was present between the Poseys and Northport.Arkansas courts have repeatedly declined to find that individuals like Matt—relatives without power-of-attorney or other legal authority who admit a family member to a nursing home—possess valid authority to bind their relatives to arbitration under a third-party beneficiary theory. In this case, because Matt was undisputedly not his father's legal guardian or attorney-in-fact, he lacked the capacity to sign the contract as his father's representative. Accordingly, the court reversed the order compelling arbitration and remanded for further proceedings. View "Northport Health Services of Arkansas, LLC v. Posey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Air Evac's claims in an action alleging that Arkansas Blue inadequately reimbursed Air Evac for ambulance services that Air Evac provided Arkansas Blue plan members. The court held that Air Evac's assignment did not convey the right to sue for equitable relief under section 1132(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Furthermore, the district court did not err by finding that Arkansas Blue's conduct was not actionable because it fell within the Arkansas Deceptive Practices Act's safe harbor for actions or transactions permitted under the laws administered by the insurance commissioner. Finally, the district court did not err by rejecting Air Evac's claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. View "Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. USAble Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Ford on plaintiff's claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiff, born without a left forearm and hand, applied for an entry-level assembler position at Ford's assembly plant.The court held that the district court did not err by using the broad-range-of-jobs standard because this case only involved the major life activity of working or employment; the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiff had not satisfied the broad-range-of jobs standard because Ford considered him permanently restricted from a single, particular job he applied for; plaintiff waived his argument regarding direct evidence of discrimination; and therefore plaintiff's claim of discrimination under the MHRA failed, because plaintiff failed to show that Ford regarded him as having a disability. Finally, the court declined to consider the retaliation claim on appeal. View "Heuton v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a no-contact restraining order after defendant failed to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act (SORNA). The court held that there was sufficient evidence on the record to justify the order in light of the long history of violent confrontations and abusive conduct. Furthermore, the order did not impose a greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary. Finally, defendant's challenge to the retroactive application of SORNA based on the nondelegation doctrine failed. View "United States v. Jennings" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against a trooper, alleging that the trooper used excessive force when he shot and killed Gerry Thompson during a domestic disturbance response. The district court denied the trooper's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and the trooper appealed.The Eighth Circuit dismissed the trooper's appeal, holding that the appeal turned on disputed issues of fact as to what occurred before the shooting and thus the court lacked jurisdiction. View "Thompson v. Dill" on Justia Law