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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, invoking Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The court held that defendant had at least three qualifying convictions under current law and resentencing would not change his Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement. Therefore, Johnson error was harmless and he was not entitled to relief under section 2255. View "Garcia-Hernandez v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal, holding that he waived his right in his plea agreement to request or receive records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Defendant had pleaded guilty to attempting to arrange, for the purpose of private financial gain, the travel of a person in interstate commerce in order to engage in a commercial sex act with a person under 18 years of age. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear defendant's challenge to his FOIA waiver because the claim was not ripe for review. In this case, defendant has not requested any records from the government under FOIA. View "United States v. Gates" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after she conditionally pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the CCSO had an impoundment and inventory policy; the district court did not err in finding that the officer's decision to use his discretion to impound the vehicle was legitimate and reasonable; the district court also did not err in finding the deputies followed the inventory policy without impermissible, unfettered discretion; because the policy required an inventory of the entire vehicle it was reasonable for the officers to open containers believed to have items valued at more than $25; the decision to terminate the inventory also complied with policy; and the officers' suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity did not establish that the sole purpose of the search was investigative. View "United States v. Morris" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against police officers, in their individual capacities, alleging that the officers used excessive force and exhibited deliberate indifference to medical needs in an incident that led to the death of her son. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to the officers and held that the officers' use of force did not violate clearly established law nor did their actions on the scene exhibit deliberate indifference to medical needs. In this case, there was insufficient evidence that a need for medical treatment was so obvious that law enforcement exhibited deliberate indifference by taking the son to jail. Furthermore, the officers were not deliberately indifferent when they called paramedics to assist him. View "Hanson v. Best" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Strata's excess insurer, Houston Casualty, and denial of its cross-motion for summary judgment. After an employee was killed in a mine accident, his estate filed the underlying suit alleging that Strata's intentional failure to maintain a safe workplacae triggered an exception to the Montana Workers Compensation Act which provided the exclusive remedy for work injuries.The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Houston Casualty because the excess insurance policy did not cover the estate's claims against Strata in the underlying suit. Therefore, Houston Casualty had no duty to indemnify Strata and thus it did not breach its duty of good faith. In this case, under the policy's plain and unambiguous language, coverage was subject to the Montana Intentional Acts Exclusion Endorsement. View "Houston Casualty Co. v. Strata Corp." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of JBS in an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law (IWPCL). Plaintiff alleged a failure to accommodate claim and a termination claim, as well as a claim that JBS intentionally failed to pay plaintiff a portion of his earned wages.The court held that, even if plaintiff was disabled, he was not qualified to perform the essential functions of his job, and his claims failed on that basis. The court explained that lifting was an essential function of the maintenance mechanic position that could not be reasonably accommodated, and plaintiff failed to show that accommodations JBS offered were unreasonable. The court held that plaintiff was not a qualified individual under the ADA and thus his termination claim also failed. Finally, because mere allegations were insufficient to rebut a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the district court properly granted summary judgment as to the IWPCL claim. In this case, JBS's payroll records reflected that plaintiff was correctly paid and any errors were quickly remedied. View "Gardea v. JBS USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendants Rodriguez and Marcov appealed their sentences and restitution orders imposed by the district court after they pleaded guilty to wire fraud. Defendants' convictions stemmed from their participation in a scheme to obtain money from generally elderly victims.The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Rodriguez to 79 months in prison after applying an upward departure based on the number of victims; the government met its burden of proving that the correct amount of restitution was awarded, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in electing to make the entire amount jointly and severally attributable to Rodriguez; the government met its burden to prove the amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence and the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Marcov liable for the full amount of the loss during the time he was active in the criminal enterprise; the district court did not clearly err by finding that Marcov was a supervisor, rather than a minor participant, in the scheme; and Marcov's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute a controlled substance. The court held that the district court did not err by allowing the prosecutor to use the phrase "historical conspiracy" during trial. In this case, defendant failed to explain how the prosecutor's use of the phrase created a new crime or invited the jury to find him guilty under a relaxed burden or proof. Because the district court did not err, the court need not consider whether any error was structural. View "United States v. Zarco" on Justia Law

After plaintiff obtained a home equity loan from Countrywide, he filed a pro se complaint alleging five causes of action against Bank of America, the company that acquired Countrywide. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of two claims based on Bank of America's failure to honor plaintiff's alleged early payoff right. In this case, plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because he had been a member of a global class action settlement that included a broad release of claims by all class members. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by promptly setting the remaining claims for trial. The court explained that, at minimum, Bank of America failed to establish that the statute of frauds barred these claims as a matter of law on the record. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Calon v. Bank of America Corp." on Justia Law

After her fifteen year old son was shot and killed by a police officer, plaintiff filed suit against the officer, the police chief, and the city, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law. The district court granted summary judgment for the police chief and the city. A jury found that the officer violated the boy's Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force and returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to establish a municipal custom based on failure to prevent police misconduct; plaintiff failed to show that the city acted with deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom its officers came into contact; the district court did not err by requiring plaintiff to establish a pattern of constitutional violations to prove her claim; plaintiff's evidence of officer-involved shootings did not establish deliberate indifference to a pattern of excessive force; and the district court likewise did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's failure to train or supervise claim. The court also held that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to hold the police chief individually liable; there was no genuine issue of material fact that a plainly obvious consequence of the hiring decision would be the officer's unjustified use of deadly force; and the evidence failed to show the chief had notice that the officer's training and supervision were inadequate and likely to result in the use of excessive force. View "Perkins v. Hastings" on Justia Law