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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the school district and the Arkansas Department of Education, in an action alleging that plaintiffs' children were denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The court held that Child A and Child L were provided a FAPE and the district court did not err in rejecting their families' claims. The court noted that the district court's strategies, while they might have been imperfect, complied with the IDEA, included detailed strategies to address the children's behavioral problems and contained evidence that the children were progressing academically. The court held that Child S and Child G's claims were not administratively exhausted and the district court properly granted the district's motion for summary judgment on their claims. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an expert report as a sanction for plaintiffs' failure to disclose the report on a timely basis, and the report was conclusory and non-specific and would not have materially impacted the court's analysis. View "Parrish v. Bentonville School District" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted the employee's petition for review of the Board's order finding that the company violated sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. The employee argued that it did not fire an employee for union activity in violation of the NLRA, but that he was fired for misusing the employee's Wi-Fi and sleeping on the job. The court held that the Board did not hold the General Counsel to its burden of proving that discriminatory animus toward the employee's protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to discharge him. The court also held that the Board erred in determining the employer's post-termination interviews of the discharged employee's co-worker were an unfair labor practice as the questioning could not be said to reasonably tend to unlawfully coerce the interviewee. Therefore, the parts of the petition addressing the warning was enforced, but the Board's findings about the firing and the interviews were set aside. The court remanded for the district court to apply Wright Line to determine whether the company violated the Act in terminating the employee. View "Tschiggfrie Properties, Ltd. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of supervised release after finding that defendant violated many conditions, including the use of controlled substances. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted transcripts of an expert witness from two prior Northern Iowa cases where the expert testified in detail about the reliability and acceptance of sweat patch testing was harmless. The evidence was cumulative and unnecessary in light of the other evidence in the case. View "United States v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 188 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's prior conviction for Arkansas first-degree terroristic threatening was a violent felony for Armed Career Criminal Act sentencing, where defendant threatened to kill his girlfriend while holding a knife to her throat. The court also held that the district court properly counted defendant's prior second degree battery conviction as a violent felony under Arkansas law. Therefore, defendant had the predicate violent felonies to be sentenced as an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Myers" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded with directions to return the case to state court. The court held that removal of the suit from Arkansas state court to federal court was untimely under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3), and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits. In this case, the second notice of removal filed September 26, 2016, was well outside the thirty-day time limit established by section 1446(b)(3). View "Davis Neurology PA v. DoctorDirectory.com LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant Homedew's conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and Defendant Carr's sentence for possession of methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not err by denying Homedew's motion to suppress evidence where it found that Homedew voluntarily consented to a search of his backpack; Homedew's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was premature in this direct appeal; and Homedew's additional pro se arguments were without merit. The court also held that Carr's 190 month sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Carr" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from consolidated actions alleging negligence and malicious conduct by the United States related to the development and maintenance of Albert Pike. In 2010, an intense storm system caused rapid and serious flooding of the river and resulted in the death of 20 campers. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the United States's motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Applying the Arkansas Recreational Use Statute, the court held that the campsite fee the Park Service charged was not an admission fee, and charging the fee did not disqualify the Park Service from claiming immunity under the statute. Furthermore, camping within a 100-year floodplain was not an uncommon recreational activity in Arkansas and the activity was of common usage. Therefore, the statute's immunity would extend to a private land owner facing this claim and the government could claim the immunity. View "Moss v. United States" on Justia Law

Factors that have already been taken into account in calculating the advisory Guidelines range can nevertheless form the basis of a variance. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's resentence on remand from the district court. Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 120 months in prison. The court held that the district court did not err by applying an upward variance of 83 months from the high end of the Sentencing Range. The sentence in this case was supported by factors not accounted for, either in full or in part, by the Guidelines. The district court also did not err by considering the sentencing factors, including defendant's extensive adult criminal record and likelihood of recidivism. Therefore, defendant's sentence, even if it was in the highest criminal history category, was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Thorne" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the city in an action brought by plaintiff, the former city attorney for Minot, North Dakota. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion seeking to sanction the city for its alleged malfeasance in losing evidence. The court held that plaintiff's sex-based harassment claim failed because the only articulated basis for concluding that she was experiencing sex-based harassment was that the city manager unfavorably compared her work style to the previous city attorney; plaintiff's sex-based retaliation claim failed because she never made a report of sex stereotyping, so such a report could not have been the reason the city fired her; plaintiff did not suffer reputational harm from the allegedly false statements about her job performance and termination in the affidavits accompanying the city's summary judgment motion; and plaintiff cited no authority for the novel proposition that a defendant in a civil action can violate due process simply by submitting evidence in court. Finally, the court held that plaintiff's challenge to the district court's denial of her motion for additional time to respond was not properly before the court; plaintiff forfeited any right to challenge the award of litigation costs; and plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal certain portions of the record was granted. View "Auer v. City of Minot" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's restitution order after she pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting the solicitation and receipt of kickbacks in return for referring patients to a pharmacy. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant conspired with others to defraud the United States of an amount that justified the award. In this case, the offense of conviction did not authorize the amount of restitution ordered, but defendant's plea agreement allowed the court to consider other criminal conduct that would justify restitution. The court noted that, although defendant apparently did not ask the district court to retain the funds in its registry pending appeal, the clerk's disbursal of funds to victims did not moot the appeal, and the court had not been notified that defendant paid this amount to the district court or that the court disbursed such funds to victims. View "United States v. Polukhin" on Justia Law