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

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Metropolitan Council on LPA's claim that the Council violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other federal and state laws. In this case the Council is the sole defendant and LPA filed suit prior to a final agency action.The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear LPA's claim, because Eighth Circuit precedent expressly rejects the viability of a NEPA cause of action outside of the Administrative Procedure Act framework, especially when the only defendant is a state agency. Therefore, LPA has no cause of action through which it could state a plausible claim. The court remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. View "Lakes and Parks Alliance of Minneapolis v. The Metropolitan Council" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging Arkansas's ballot access requirements for independent candidates. The Secretary appealed the district court's grant of plaintiff's request for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot, because the state legislature recently amended the challenged statute to accord with the petition filing deadline that plaintiff had sought, and thus no controversy remains. The court held that the equities weighed against vacatur, and the public interest is best served by a substantial body of judicial precedents limiting the burden that those requirements may place on candidates' and voters' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. View "Moore v. Thurston" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and one count of failure to truthfully account for and pay over withheld taxes. The court held that any error in calculating loss amount was harmless whether the district court stated that whether it found loss to be $18 million or $4 million would not have an operative effect on the sentence. Accordingly, the district court did not procedurally err by applying a 20-level increase under USSG 2B1.1(b)(1)(K), which applies if the total loss amount is more than $9.5 million but not more than $25 million.The court also held that the district court did not err by applying a four-level aggravating role enhancement under section 3B1.1(a), because defendant was an organizer or leader of an otherwise extensive criminal scheme; the district court did not engage in impermissible double counting by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) for violating an order excluding defendant from participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs; and the district court did not err by applying a two-level enhancement under section 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for conduct constituting sophisticated means. Finally, defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him. View "United States v. Belfrey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence and denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on equal protection grounds. The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress where defendant pointed to nothing in the record that revealed that the officers engaged in objectively unreasonable conduct in approaching his door to knock the second time.The court also held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that he failed to show he had been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated have not been prosecuted for similar conduct. In this case, the policy statements made by Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued to U.S. Attorneys did not create a policy by which residents of states where marijuana has been legalized are affirmatively treated differently from those of states where it has not. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district and partial denial of plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the school district was deliberately indifferent to her allegations that another student sexually assaulted her.The court could not say that the school district's response to the complaint effectively caused the first incident with plaintiff. Furthermore, the school district's response was not clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances and, even if the school district were deliberately indifferent, it was not deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment that was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it could be said to have deprived plaintiff of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err by denying the motion to amend in order for plaintiff to add a negligence claim against the school district through a direct action against its insurance provider, because the claim was futile. View "Doe v. Dardanelle School District" on Justia Law

FedNat, a Florida insurance company, appealed the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Federal Mutual, a Minnesota insurance company. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss, holding that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over FedNat.The court held that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over FedNat, because it did not have the minimum contacts with Minnesota necessary for Minnesota to exercise jurisdiction under its long-arm statute. In this case, the choice-of-law provisions specifying that the forum state's laws govern were insufficient on their own to confer personal jurisdiction; the fact that the Co-Existence Agreement affected Federated Mutual in Minnesota did not subject FedNat to personal jurisdiction there; and the court's five-factor test showed that FedNat did not enter a contractual relationship that envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts in Minnesota. View "Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. FedNat Holding Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of DHS's reinstatement of a prior order for petitioner's removal and the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his applications for withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the reinstatement of the prior removal order because the issue was not exhausted; petitioner failed to show prejudice and could not succeed on his claim that DHS violated his due process rights by continuing to interrogate him without his attorney present; and petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his claims for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. In this case, petitioner failed to make a showing that the Guatemalan government would be unable or unwilling to protect him from a loan shark, and petitioner failed to make any meaningful argument to the BIA regarding his CAT claim. View "Mendez-Gomez v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's prior Arkansas conviction of aggravated robbery in violation of Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 5-12-102 was a crime of violence for purposes of sentencing under USSG 2K2.1(a)(1). In this case, Arkansas robbery satisfied both the elements clause and generic robbery in the enumerated offenses clause of USSG 4B1.2, and thus both Arkansas robbery and Arkansas aggravated robbery are crimes of violence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an Iowa state prisoner, alleged that prison officials violated this Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they had him civilly committed and forcibly medicated. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's wrongful commitment claim and his forced medication claim. The court held that plaintiff's wrongful commitment claim was not cognizable under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and his forced medication claim lacked evidentiary support where he never presented evidence that would have allowed a reasonable factfinder to conclude that his constitutional rights had been violated. View "Thomas v. Eschen" 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 held that defendant's prior Missouri conviction for unlawful use of a weapon qualified as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(i), because it involved the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.The court also held that defendant's prior Missouri conviction for first degree assault also qualified as a violent felony and, absent en banc review, the court was bound by United States v. Winston, 845 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2017), and United States v. Minnis, 872 F.3d 889, 891 (8th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1581 (2018). View "United States v. Pryor" on Justia Law