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

Plaintiff, a white man, filed suit against officials of the St. Louis Police Department, alleging race discrimination and conspiracy to discriminate when an African-American woman was chosen for the position in which plaintiff applied. A jury found in favor of plaintiff on his claims against three of his superiors (Defendants Muxo, Harris, and Isom). Defendants appealed. The court concluded that materially different working conditions provided sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action. Because there were “probative facts to support the verdict,” the district court did not err by denying defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s discrimination claims. The court also concluded that a reasonable jury could find evidence of a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dept." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for assault of a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 111, following an altercation with an officer of the Oglala Sioux Tribe (OST) Department of Public Safety. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that OST public safety officers are afforded the same protection under 18 U.S.C. 111 that Congress has afforded Bureau of Indian Affair (BIA) employees. The court held that the district court abused its discretion when it instructed the jury that the OST officer in this case was a federal officer as a matter of law. The OST officer qualified as a federal officer under 25 U.S.C. 2804(f) only if she was a tribal officer, and the court should have permitted the jury to determine whether she was a tribal officer. Nonetheless, overwhelming evidence demonstrated that she was in fact an OST public safety officer and, therefore, a federal officer. Because the district court's error was harmless, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Janis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, alleging that a deputy had denied him emergency medical care in violation of his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the deputy and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that the deputy is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim that the deputy acted unreasonably where a right under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable delay in medical care for an arrestee had been clearly established at the time. The court also concluded that plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference failed because he has not produced sufficient evidence to support a finding that the deputy violated that right. In this case, plaintiff received medical treatment on the morning that he was released from jail, and his claim is premised on harm allegedly arising from the delay caused by plaintiff’s failure to arrange a hospital visit the day before. The medical evidence is insufficient to establish an objectively serious medical need for expeditious treatment on the day of plaintiff’s arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bailey v. Feltmann" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, appealed the BIA's denial of his claim for withholding of removal based on harm he suffered at the hands of a drug cartel in Mexico when he was twelve years old. The court concluded that the BIA did not err in finding that petitioner failed to establish a causal nexus between the persecution he suffered and his membership in the proposed particular social group: “escapee Mexican child laborers.” Accordingly, because the BIA did not err in denying petitioner's application for withholding of removal, the court denied the petition for review. View "Cano v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Riceland, requesting the district court compel Riceland to contribute a portion of its recoveries in various cases to the common benefit fund established by the district court to compensate plaintiffs for their legal work. The district court dismissed Riceland's counterclaims of breach of contract and tortious interference and certified the dismissal as a final judgment under FRCP 54(b). The court agreed with its sister circuits and held that a res judicata effect can properly be considered as a “miscellaneous factor” under the Hayden factor analysis. In this case, the district court did not err in considering the res judicata ramification in the Arkansas state court case. The district court found that plaintiffs and the district court itself would suffer injustice if entry of final judgment was delayed. On the merits, the court concluded that the claims regarding genetically-modified rice were released by the Settlement Agreement and Release, but the Release does not govern plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims against Riceland for its failure to contribute to the fund. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Riceland Foods v. Downing" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of her motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that even if Alleyne v. United States announced a new constitutional rule, that rule does not apply retroactively on collateral review. In regard to her ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the district court properly rejected petitioner's contention that she was constitutionally entitled to effective assistance of counsel during the writ of certiorari phase of her appeal; to the extent petitioner’s counsel made any error in estimating the sentencing range she might face under the Guidelines, the mistake did not render her plea involuntary under the circumstances of this case; any error counsel made for failing to persuade the district court that petitioner qualified for safety-valve relief was not so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment; nor is petitioner able to show her counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the district court's finding that she did not qualify for a safety valve. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying her an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Walker v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of unlawful possession of ammunition as a previously convicted felon and possession of an unregistered firearm. The court concluded that defendant's 96-month term of imprisonment is not unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. In this case, the district court acknowledged defendant's mental health concerns and considered the nature and circumstances of the offenses of conviction. However, the court also weighed the seriousness of defendant's offense and his fixation with dangerous weapons, as well as the safety concerns that defendant presented at trial and his unwillingness to get mental health treatment. The court also concluded that defendant's condition of supervised release forbidding him from possessing any object that could be used as a weapon is not overbroad or otherwise flawed. In regard to the condition of supervised release forbidding the possession of other dangerous items, the court concluded that the condition should be modified by adding the clause - “Except with prior approval of the probation office,”- at the beginning of the condition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment as modified. View "United States v. Tumea" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging a deprivation of his constitutional rights after he spent approximately one year in administrative segregation while awaiting a transfer. Plaintiff was serving an eight-year sentence when a state court judge granted plaintiff's motion to vacate and set aside his conviction and sentence. The state court judge ordered that plaintiff be remanded to the custody of the sheriff's department. While waiting this transfer, he was placed in the administrative segregation at issue here. The district court dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit for failure to state a claim. Because the state court judge's order was stayed by the appeal and plaintiff's conviction and sentence were not in fact vacated, the court concluded that he remained a prisoner while the appeal was pending and did not regain the status of a pretrial detainee. Consequently, as a prisoner, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged he was deprived of a liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the county and the sheriff. The court reversed in part and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice plaintiff's claims against the John and Jane Does. View "Ballinger v. Cedar County, MO" on Justia Law

Defendants Carlson, Haugen, and Gellerman were convicted of charges related to their involvement in selling misbranded synthetic drugs at a head shop in Duluth. The court rejected defendants' challenge to the constitutionality of the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986 (Analogue Act), 21 U.S.C. 813, 841, concluding that the Supreme Court recently determined in McFadden v. United States that the Analogue Act is not unconstitutionally vague because the statute's "knowingly or intentionally" scienter requirement alleviates vagueness concerns; the district court did not err by improperly instructing the jury about the two part test to prove a knowing violation of the Analogue Act; the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the jury to find that the analogue was similar in chemical structure to a controlled substance, but similar in pharmacological effects to a different controlled substance; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants under the Analogue Act; the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting expert testimony regarding the substantial similarity in chemical structure between scheduled controlled substances and the products sold at the head shop; the district court did not err in prohibiting Carlson from presenting an entrapment by estoppel defense; and the court affirmed convictions under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 331(a), and the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). The court rejected defendants' remaining arguments and affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Carlson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of corruptly obstructing or impeding the administration of the internal revenue laws, and eight counts of willfully filing a false income tax return. The court concluded that Count 1 was not barred by the statute of limitations; the district court did not err in granting the government's motion in limine to exclude evidence from the IRS relating to other individuals who filed false returns similar to those that defendant filed; the district court did not err in excluding evidence that defendant did not owe taxes; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal based on defendant's argument that the documents he sent to the IRS were not "tax returns"; and the district court did not violate defendant's right to due process by excluding evidence that the income tax returns that defendant mailed to the IRS were not "filed" on the date alleged in the indictment where defendant admitted he mailed the forms on that date. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Giambalvo" on Justia Law