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

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims of excessive force and municipal liability, as well as state tort claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity where plaintiff established that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. In this case, the officers delivered repeated strikes, punches, and blows to plaintiff while plaintiff pleaded with them to stop hitting him because he was not resisting arrest or doing anything wrong. Therefore, a reasonable officer standing in defendants' shoes would have understood that the amount of force used to subdue plaintiff was excessive, as was their action in purposefully dropping plaintiff face-first onto the sidewalk after he had been subdued and handcuffed. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over the officers' appeal of the denial of summary judgment on the state law claims because the court's resolution of the qualified immunity appeal did not necessarily resolve plaintiff's state law claims against the officers. View "Burnikel v. Fong" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights action against four South Dakota corrections officials, asserting both facial and as-applied challenges to the State's prison-pornography policy. The Eighth Circuit found it prudent to decide whether the policy was constitutional as applied to plaintiff before reaching his facial challenges. However, the court could not adopt the district court's as-applied analysis because it was error to resurrect and apply the 2000 Policy. The court explained that this was not the policy that plaintiff actually challenged, nor was it the authority under which SDSP staff withheld the rejected materials. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's summary judgment order and remanded for it to reevaluate defendant's as-applied claims based on the 2014 Policy. View "Sisney v. Kaemingk" on Justia Law

Petitioner, extradited from Canada and then convicted of felony murder in violation of South Dakota law, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief. Petitioner argued that this appeal concerned the doctrine of dual criminality of Article 2 of the Treaty on Extradition with Canada. Petitioner argued that felony murder was not a crime in Canada and, therefore, was not an extraditable offense under the Treaty. Determining that petitioner had Article III standing, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the Consent to Waiver of Specialty conclusively established that petitioner's prosecution and conviction for felony murder in South Dakota did not violate Article 2. In granting the Consent to Waiver of Specialty, the Minister of Justice necessarily determined that, in light of the evidence presented, the conduct charged would have violated Canadian law. View "Graham v. Young" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that petitioner had at least three qualifying prior convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The court held that defendant's prior conviction for Missouri second-degree robbery was a crime of violence under the force clause, United States v. Swopes, No. 16-1797 (8th Cir. Mar. 29, 2018). Therefore, defendant had three previous qualifying violent felony convictions and defendant's 15 year sentence was not imposed in violation of the Constitution or in excess of the maximum authorized by law. View "Robinett v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 324 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a), and production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a). The court held that the district court correctly applied section 2251(e) when it adjusted the advisory sentencing guideline range from 292-365 months to 300-365 months to account for the statutory 25 year minimum penalty. Therefore, the district court applied the correct advisory guideline range when determining defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Loyd" on Justia Law

Debtor's wife, who was not a party to the bankruptcy court proceedings, appealed several of the bankruptcy court's orders. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy appellate panel's dismissal of her appeal, holding that she was not a "person aggrieved" by the orders and therefore lacked standing. View "Wigley v. Wigley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action alleging that defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213. Plaintiff has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair for mobility. In this case, she tried to eat at an Omaha steakhouse owned and operated by defendant and alleged that she could not access the steakhouse due to certain physical barriers. The court held that the action became moot after defendant's mediation; plaintiff could not use the violation encountered in the parking space to expand her standing to sue for unencountered violations inside the steakhouse that never injured her; the district court did not abuse its wide discretion in allowing evidence on jurisdictional issues; plaintiff's request for discovery was futile because she did not have standing to sue in this action; and the district court did not err in deciding the Rule 12(b)(1) motion and denying discovery under Rule 56. View "Davis v. Anthony, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that the district court properly classified defendant's second degree robbery conviction in violation of Missouri law as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court overruled the panel decision to the contrary in United States v. Bell, 840 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2016). In this case, the text of the Missouri second degree robbery statute requires proof that a defendant used physical force or threatened the immediate use of physical force. Missouri decisions applying the statute showed that physical force under the Missouri statute was the equivalent of physical force within the meaning of the ACCA. View "United States v. Swopes" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's denial of qualified immunity to deputies in an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging excessive force. In this case, each of the deputies knew that plaintiff was a paranoid schizophrenic who had not taken his antipsychotic medication, could potentially be dangerous, refused repeated requests to go to the hospital or lie on his stomach, pretended to shoot himself in the head, took a defensive position lying on the ground with his hands and feet up, and yelled "just shoot me." Therefore, the deputies knew there was a reasonable expectation of aggression and a resistant subject. The court held that Deputy Maggard acted reasonably in cuffing and shackling plaintiff; Deputy Shuster acted reasonably in applying an arm lock that broke plaintiff's arm and by using nunchucks to obtain plaintiff's compliance; Deputy Calvin acted reasonably by tasing plaintiff five times after giving warnings to plaintiff and attempting less intrusive methods; and, even if Deputy Calvin did not act reasonably, he was entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff could not show that a reasonable officer would have been on notice that his conduct violated a clearly established right. View "Cravener v. Shuster" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders dismissing the trustee's complaint and denying leave to file a further amended complaint. The panel held that the ultimate issue presented was whether the finality of an auction sale order, together with statutory provisions and procedural rules, effectively defeated the trustee's claims. The panel held that the bankruptcy court properly dismissed the adversary proceeding; the trustee's allegations in the amended complaint against defendants were inconsistent with the specific findings of the sale order; the findings regarding proper notice, lack of collusion, good faith, fair and reasonable consideration, etc., were all necessary and integral to the bankruptcy court's approval of the sale; the panel rejected the trustee's claim of privity as irrelevant; the trustee's reliance on Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., ___ U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017), where the Supreme Court held that structured dismissals must follow the same priority rules as required for a Chapter 11 plan confirmation, was misplaced; and whether the trustee liked the specific findings of the sale order or not, they were the detailed findings of the bankruptcy court and were not appealed and thus final. The panel rejected the trustee's remaining claims. View "Fulmer v. Fifth Third Equipment Finance Co." on Justia Law