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

In 2011, plaintiff filed suit against the city and others, in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging violations of the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as violations of state law. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from a no-knock forceful entry into a club.Before final judgment in the first action, plaintiff filed the present suit, alleging claims arising from the events occurring at the club on the night of the no-knock entry. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court correctly ruled that res judicata barred Counts 1, 2, 5, and 8, because they involved claims against the same parties from the first action, and plaintiff could have brought the new claims in the first action. As to the remaining counts, the court held that they were properly dismissed because these claims arose out of the same raid, and involved defendants who could have been joined in the first action. As the district court explained, allowing plaintiff to circumvent the district court's ruling on his untimely motion for leave to amend in the first action by bringing a second action against the new defendants would unreasonably burden the parties and the court. View "Elbert v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Charter, holding that Charter Spectrum Voice VoIP service was an "information service" under the Telecommunications Act and Minnesota state regulation of plaintiff's VoIp service was preempted. The court explained that Spectrum Voice's service was an information service because it makes available information via telecommunications by providing the capability to transform that information through net protocol conversion. View "Charter Advanced Services v. Lange" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in an action filed by plaintiff, seeking additional insurance benefits for smoke and fire damage at his home. The court held that plaintiff's policy was an actual-cash-value policy, and that plaintiff was not entitled to relief on his evidentiary claim. In this case, plaintiff failed to show that the district court admonished the jury to disregard his testimony, he did not otherwise make an offer of proof as to what additional testimony he sought to provide, and he failed to provide a transcript of the final day of trial. View "Hatcher v. MDOW Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A bankruptcy court has no authority under federal law to deny an exemption on a ground not specified in the bankruptcy code. Therefore, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision overruling the trustee's object to debtor's second amended claim of exemptions. View "Rucker v. Belew" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child by force, and incest in Indian Country. The court held that Count 2 (aggravated sexual abuse of a child) and Count 5 (incest in Indian Country) required proof of different elements and were not multiplicitous; the district court properly refused to include defendant's jury instruction for aggravated sexual abuse of a child; the evidence was insufficient to support defendant's convictions for attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for aggravated sexual abuse of a child; and the evidence was insufficient to support defendant's conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a child by force. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "United States v. Robert Fool Bear, Sr." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's claim seeking post-conviction relief as untimely. Petitioner asserted that, in light of Johnson v. United States, the district court violated his rights under the Due Process Clause by sentencing him as a career offender based on the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2). The court explained that whether Johnson restarted the one-year limitations period turns on whether Johnson "newly recognized" this asserted right. In this case, petitioner's asserted right was not dictated by Johnson. Rather, the better view was that Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), leaves open the question of whether the mandatory guidelines are susceptible to vagueness challenges. The court held that, because the question remains open, and the answer was reasonably debatable, Johnson did not recognize the right asserted by petitioner. Therefore, petitioner could not benefit from the limitations period in 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(3), and the district court correctly dismissed his motion as untimely. View "Russo v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy appellate panel's (BAP) decision affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of Korley Sears and Robert Sears' claims in a protracted family dispute. The court held that this case, at a minimum, was related to a case under Title 11 and the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction on this basis. The court also held that plaintiffs impliedly consented to the bankruptcy court's entry of the dismissal order; and the BAP correctly determined that the shareholder standing rule barred plaintiffs' claims because they alleged only injuries that were derivative of debtor AFY. View "Sears v. Sears" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants after the Redevelopment Authority condemned his property under its power of eminent domain, seeking to enjoin the condemnation proceedings and to obtain relocation benefits under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. The Eighth Circuit held that the Act did not create a private right of action against the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and that plaintiff waived any challenge to the court's abstention decision. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's decision to abstain from deciding plaintiff's claim against the Redevelopment Authority and dismissal of his claim against the Agency. View "Osher v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of St. Louis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer (the City), a law firm, and CBC, alleging that defendants violated their obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), in handling a consumer report that she agreed to provide as part of her application for employment with the City. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims against the City and law firm for failure to state a claim and granted judgment on the pleadings for CBC.The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring her claims in federal court. In this case, plaintiff failed to plead an intangible injury to her privacy that was sufficient to confer Article III standing and there was no well-pleaded allegation that the City acted beyond her consent. Furthermore, plaintiff's claims of reputational harm, compromised security and lost time did not establish Article III standing. Likewise, plaintiff lacked standing to pursue her claim that the City's law firm and CBC violated her rights under the Act. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's orders and remanded with instructions that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Auer v. CBCInnovis, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Northern in an action alleging that the company failed to accommodate plaintiff's disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court held that plaintiff's arguments did not establish a genuine dispute of material fact that Northern did not interact in good faith as a matter of law. Under the circumstances, the timing of Northern's response was insufficient to support a finding that the company did not act in good faith; there was no evidence to support a finding that Northern prematurely abandoned the interactive process; and Northern did not attempt to demonstrate that some other boot would be as effective as a boot that conformed to the performance standards. View "Sharbono v. Northern States Power Co." on Justia Law