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

Plaintiff filed suit against Charter, alleging that Charter retained his personally identifiable information in violation of a section of the Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. 551(e). The district court granted Charter's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that plaintiff's notice of appeal was timely where plaintiff filed his notice of appeal thirty-seven days after the district court’s judgment dismissing the case was entered in the docket, well before the district court’s judgment was deemed “entered” and the time for filing a notice of appeal began to run. With the benefit of Spokeo v. Robin's guidance, the court concluded that plaintiff has not alleged an injury in fact as required by Article III. In Spokeo, the Supreme Court explained that Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation. In this case, plaintiff failed to allege a concrete harm and failed to allege an economic injury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Braitberg v. Charter Communications" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks review of the BIA's conclusion that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229(b), because he had sustained a prior conviction for an aggravated felony. Although the government argued before the immigration judge and the Board that petitioner's burglary conviction also qualified as an aggravated felony under section 1101(a)(43)(G), the court may not consider whether to affirm the denial of relief on that ground, because the Board did not decide the issue. The court concluded that remand is warranted for the Board to consider in the first instance whether the burglary conviction is an aggravated felony under section 1101(a)(43)(G). Accordingly, the court granted the government's motion to remand. View "Kong Meng Xiong v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on his three prior violent felony convictions. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of prior allegations of excessive force by an officer because plaintiff was entitled to present his defense theory; the district court did not err by concluding that his prior conviction under Minnesota's drive by shooting statute, Minn. Stat. 609.66, subd. 1e, qualifies as a violent felony under the force clause of the ACCA; a review of plaintiff's guilty plea record reveals that he was convicted of firing "at or toward a person" under subdivision 1e(b); and since plaintiff's prior conviction required a mens rea of recklessness, it qualified as a violent felony. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Fogg" on Justia Law

American Family and Liberty Mutual (Appellants) filed suit against the City after a water-main break in the City flooded the basement condominiums and street-level window wells in the the nearby Sexton building. On appeal, Appellants challenge the district court’s decision on their Equal Protection Clause claim, federal takings claim, and state takings claim. The court concluded that the insurance companies are not similarly situated to the uninsured property owners for purposes of an Equal Protection Clause claim. Even if Appellants could demonstrate that they are similarly situated to the uninsured claimants, the court is satisfied that the reasons proffered by the City, including protecting the welfare of its citizens by minimizing the time claimants were without housing and suffering uncompensated damages, as well as minimizing its own costs and litigation risks, demonstrate that its settlement decisions were rationally related to legitimate, government interests. The court also concluded that because Appellants failed to pursue the available mandamus action in state court, both the state and federal takings claims are not ripe for review by the federal district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "American Family Ins. v. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the City's failure to develop a conflict-of-interest policy led to a violation of his constitutional rights when prosecutors (the Attorneys) filed a criminal complaint against him while simultaneously representing the victim of his alleged crime in separate civil actions. The district court granted the City’s and the Attorneys’ separate motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court dismissed a remaining state law claim under Minnesota’s doctrine of statutory discretionary immunity. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint against the Attorneys based on absolute prosecutorial immunity where the development of a conflicts policy and the determination as to what constitutes a conflict of interest would necessarily require legal knowledge and the exercise of related discretion, features to which the doctrine of absolute immunity applies; reversed the district court's finding that the City is absolutely immune from suit on plaintiff's section 1983 claim where municipalities do not enjoy absolute immunity from suit under section 1983; and reversed as to the supplemental state law claims based on the same reasoning. View "Sample v. City of Woodbury" on Justia Law

Defendant appeals her sentence after pleading guilty to a drug distribution conspiracy. Defendant challenges the sentence primarily on the ground that the district court did not explicitly rule on her objection relating to a mitigating role adjustment. The court concluded that the district court did not rule on defendant's role-adjustment objection and thus there was no clear error in its calculation of defendant's sentencing guidelines range based on the denial of a mitigating role adjustment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Durham" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money laundering. On appeal, defendant challenged the addition of one criminal-history point under USSG 4A1.1. The court concluded that the district court correctly added a criminal history point for defendant's armed criminal action (ACA) conviction. The court reviewed defendant's pro se supplemental brief and authorized the filing of the supplemental brief on the issue of whether defendant's prior first-degree robbery and ACA conviction is a crime of violence. In this case, the record does not indicate whether the district court relied on the residual clause or the force clause to determine that defendant's ACA offense was a crime of violence under USSG 4A1.1(e). Because the court lacks full briefing and an adequate record to address this issue, the court remanded for additional sentencing proceedings. View "United States v. Miranda-Zarco" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of an 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based upon Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782, which in most cases retroactively reduced the drug quantity determination by two base offense levels. The court concluded that section 3582 does not entitle defendant to a sentencing reduction; the district court did not abuse its discretion where the district court examined the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including the drug quantity and various legitimate aggravating factors, and concluded that a 140-month sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing; and defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion by basing its decision in part on his post-sentence conduct because the probation office’s report did not include any such information is without merit. In this case, the district court may also consider the lack of positive post-sentence information in denying a reduction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed separate actions against various Minnesota cities, counties, and law enforcement entities alleging violations of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2724(a). In separate orders, the district court denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss, including claims by many defendants that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The City of Minneapolis appeals the denial of qualified immunity in the Karasov action, and numerous Minnesota counties appeal the denial of qualified immunity in the Kampschroers action. After the parties briefed these appeals, the court issued its decision in McDonough v. Anoka County, which squarely addressed the issue of qualified immunity. The court concluded that McDonough is controlling precedent. The court also concluded that its decision that the statutory term “obtain” is unambiguous controls defendants' additional argument that the rule of lenity entitles them to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kampschroer v. Ramsey County" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Minnesota driver's license holders, filed suit against local entities, Law Enforcement Does, Commissioners, and DPS Does, alleging that defendants violated the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, by accessing or disclosing personal information from the DPS database without a permissible purpose. The district courts dismissed the actions for failure to state a claim. The present appeals raise issues similar to those presented in the court's opinion in McDonough v. Anoka County and are governed by the court's holding in that case. McDonough discussed the history, purpose, and applicability of the DPPA. The court addressed the individual complaints in this group of cases and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ray v. Anoka County" on Justia Law