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

Nikko Jenkins killed four people, including Andrea Kruger, three weeks after he was released from prison after serving ten and a half years of a twenty-one year sentence. Plaintiff, Andrea's husband, filed suit against defendants, alleging deliberate indifference, violation of Andrea’s substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988(a), and state law negligence claims under the Nebraska State Tort Claims Act (STCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8, 209 et seq. The district court granted the state and department officials' motion to dismiss. Rejecting plaintiff's waiver argument, the court concluded that there is no general substantive due process right to be protected against the release of criminals from confinement, even if that release violates state law, and the two exceptions to this rule are not applicable in this instance: first, no special relationship exists between the victim and Jenkins; and the state-created exception is inapplicable because Andrea was not a member of a limited, precisely definable group. The court also concluded that the district court correctly dismissed the state law claims against the department officials in their individual capacities because the department officials’ actions were taken while they were acting in the scope of their employment; state law claims against the department officials in their official capacities were properly dismissed where the discretionary function exception applied to the department officials' calculation of Jenkins's release date; plaintiff's claim of arithmetic error was not properly pled; the decision not to seek a civil commitment was also a discretionary function; and any mandatory duty to turn over documents was not properly pled. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kruger v. Nebraska" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Institute and several of its employees, alleging unlawful discrimination based on race and national origin under federal and Minnesota law. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from defendants' treatment of her autistic son, AA. The court agreed with the district court that there are no genuine issues of material fact for trial and summary judgment for defendants was proper. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to show that any unfavorable treatment was motivated by race or national origin; the evidence does not support a finding of discriminatory motive where AA's treatment hours do not support plaintiff's claim; plaintiff's complaints that the Institute used different treatment programming, technology, or methods with AA do not support a finding of discriminatory motive; there is no evidence that the Institute declined to employ the technology with AA for reasons of race or national origin; the evidence does not support a finding that the Institute’s handling of plaintiff’s recommended discharge was a denial of benefits motivated by race or national origin; the record belies plaintiff's claim that the Institute ignored the recommendation of AA’s independent psychologist when it decided to recommend his discharge; and the court rejected plaintiff's claim that the Institute treated her less favorably than it did other parents. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Abdull v. Lovaas Inst. for Early Intervention" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and five counts of wire fraud. Defendant's conviction stemmed from her involvement in a conspiracy to solicit participation in fake credit-repair or grant programs. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty of the conspiracy and wire fraud counts beyond a reasonable doubt; the district court properly admitted voicemail messages where defendant is heard threatening a victim that she had her social security numbers, personal information, and knew where she lived, because the evidence was relevant to show intent and was not unfairly prejudicial; the district court court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial based on a co-conspirator’s statement that defendant "killed a baby" where the statement was explained in context and was cured with further questioning; the district court's instruction sufficiently cured any potential prejudice caused by the prosecutor's comment in rebuttal closing; and the district court properly explained its reasons for defendant's sentence under the 18 U.S.C. 3353(a) factors and rejected defendant's claims that the district court should have varied downward. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Morris" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to four counts of distributing child pornography over the internet and related charges. On appeal, defendant challenged his 262 months' imprisonment. The court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors: the nature and circumstances of the offense were extensive and devastating; defendant admitted to his sexual attraction to young boys living near him and his uncharged sexual contact with several other young boys; and a real and compelling need to protect the public. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sigsbury" on Justia Law

Cargill and American Home filed suit against Greater Omaha, alleging breach of contract and warranties based on allegations that Greater Omaha sold raw beef trim tainted with E.coli O157:H7. Greater Omaha counterclaimed for tortious interference with business relationships and expectancies. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Cargill on Greater Omaha’s counterclaim. A jury returned a verdict for Cargill, awarding $9 million in damages. Greater Omaha appealed. The court concluded that there was no error in the admission of expert testimony from Dr. Harrison and Dr. Singer where the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the expert evidence met the standard for admissibility and that the evidence of the Ohio cases was best used for impeachment and cross-examination; the district court did not err in admitting the original and revised December 2007 Notice of Intended Enforcement (NOIE) and Greater Omaha’s response thereto, and there was no clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion; the court rejected Greater Omaha's challenge to the district court's jury charge and instruction; there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to forego instructing the jury on exclusion or modification of implied warranties; the jury did not reach an impermissible compromise verdict; and the district court did not apply the wrong standard of proof or otherwise err in granting Cargill’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "American Home Assurance Co. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against BNSF, claiming that BNSF refused to hire him on account of his obesity and thereby discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553, and the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1101-1126. The district court granted summary judgment for BNSF and denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his claims. The court concluded that, taken as a whole, the relevant statutory and regulatory language makes it clear that for obesity to qualify as a physical impairment - and thus a disability - under the ADA, it must result from an underlying physiological disorder or condition. This remains the standard even after enactment of the ADAAA, which did not affect the definition of physical impairment. Because plaintiff failed to produce evidence that his obesity was the result of an underlying physiological disorder or condition, the district court properly concluded that plaintiff did not have a physical impairment under the ADA. Finally, the district court properly rejected plaintiff's argument that BNSF perceived him as having a physical impairment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Morriss v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to receiving and distributing child pornography, and was sentenced to a fifteen-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1). The Supreme Court's decision in Lockhart v. United States held that the phrase “involving a minor or ward” in section 2252(b)(2) modifies only “abusive sexual conduct” and not “aggravated sexual abuse” or “sexual abuse.” Therefore, section 2252(b)(2) “applies to prior state convictions for ‘sexual abuse’ and ‘aggravated sexual abuse,’ whether or not the convictions involved a minor or ward.” In this case, the court concluded that a conviction for third-degree sexual assault under Nebraska Revised Statutes 28-320 categorically triggered a sentencing enhancement under section 2252(b)(1). Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Knowles" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; the district court properly admitted the expert testimony of an ATF Special Agent because he based his opinion on the kinds of evidence the court previously considered sufficient; the court declined to consider defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this appeal; and defendant failed to establish a Brady v. Maryland violation where defendant's argument contains no mention of an exculpatory fact, material or otherwise, withheld by the prosecution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Spight" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for several drug and firearms charges. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the evidence because the officer's initial stop of defendant's car was lawful. In this case, the court held that the district court's factual findings cannot set be set aside, given the deference the court owed them. The district court was inclined to agree that defendant's car window was partially up, but nevertheless credited the magistrate judge's determination that the rest of the officer's testimony - including his claim that he smelled PCP from defendant's car - was true. The court also concluded that the particular combination of circumstances known to the officers was sufficient to justify the search of the car as a protective sweep. Further, the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for possession with intent to distribute PCP and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; the evidence was also sufficient for the jury to find that he constructively possessed the PCP found at a certain residence; defendant was properly sentenced as a career offender; and defendant's 360 month prison sentence was at the bottom of the applicable advisory guidelines range and was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for several drug and firearms charges. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the evidence because the officer's initial stop of defendant's car was lawful. In this case, the court held that the district court's factual findings cannot set be set aside, given the deference the court owed them. The district court was inclined to agree that defendant's car window was partially up, but nevertheless credited the magistrate judge's determination that the rest of the officer's testimony - including his claim that he smelled PCP from defendant's car - was true. The court also concluded that the particular combination of circumstances known to the officers was sufficient to justify the search of the car as a protective sweep. Further, the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for possession with intent to distribute PCP and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; the evidence was also sufficient for the jury to find that he constructively possessed the PCP found at a certain residence; defendant was properly sentenced as a career offender; and defendant's 360 month prison sentence was at the bottom of the applicable advisory guidelines range and was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law