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

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a firearm found on his person at the time of arrest after defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession. Defendant, a convicted felon, was in possession of what looked like a gun and defendant's demeanor changed as soon he was asked about the gun. The court concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for law enforcement officers to believe defendant posed a danger to himself and others and that he could be neutralized by entering the premises to secure both defendant and the gun. Therefore, the district court did not err in finding exigent circumstances justified the officers' warrantless entry onto defendant's property.View "United States v. Meidel" on Justia Law

The official liquidator of Palm Beach Funds filed suit against U.S. Bank for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, willful and wanton negligence, and gross negligence. The claims arose from the Palm Beach Funds' investment through accounts maintained at U.S. Bank in what turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the amended complaint where the liquidator has not stated a plausible claim that U.S. Bank knew of and substantially supported a breach of fiduciary duty. Further, in regard to the negligence claims, the liquidator failed to allege that U.S. Bank had a duty to provide information to the Palm Beach Funds about the flow of funds in and out of the collateral account.View "Varga v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit asserting various state and federal claims against, inter alia, arresting officers, the City, his public defender, his probation officer, and two county sheriffs for delaying plaintiff's release. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against defendants. The court concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff on three different occasions; plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to suggest that the public defender reached an understanding with the prosecutor or other state actors to violate his constitutional rights; the county sheriffs properly deferred to the MDOC, which held him in extended custody for an extra day; and claims against the city were foreclosed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Gibson v. Cook, et al." on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) decision affirming a decision of the bankruptcy court approving a settlement between the Chapter 7 trustee and the City of Maplewood, and denying debtor's motion to set aside the settlement. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that debtor did not have standing because she did not have a pecuniary interest in the bankruptcy court's order.View "Peoples v. Radloff" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a juvenile sexually assaulted by another juvenile, filed suit against several public employees, alleging that they were aware of a threat by the assailant but failed to take steps to prevent the abuse by notifying plaintiff's parents. Plaintiff and the assailant were not under state supervision at the time of the assault, plaintiff was not in state custody when she voluntarily participated in the Center's after-school program, and there was no evidence that plaintiff and the assailant were even under the supervision of any of the officials or their agencies at the time of the assault at the pool. The court concluded that the facts alleged do not establish a violation of the Due Process Clause so the officials are entitled to judgment on the federal claim; a state's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not violate the Constitution; in this case, neither the custodial duty exception nor the creation of danger exception applied; and the officials are entitled to official immunity as to plaintiff's state-law negligence claims where public employees are not entitled to immunity for torts committed when they are acting in a ministerial capacity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims.View "K.B. v. Waddle, et al." on Justia Law

The Union appealed from the district court's order vacating an arbitration award. PSC argued that the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the Standards of Conduct mandate that an employee found guilty of insubordination be discharged. PSC claimed that after the arbitrator found that the employee at issue in this case had been insubordinate, the arbitrator was required to uphold the employee's discharge. The court concluded that whether the employee's discharge was for just cause was a matter of contract interpretation that was within the arbitrator's authority. In this case, the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by concluding that PSC did not have just cause to discharge the employee and by reducing the penalty from discharge to suspension, because his award draws its essence from the CBA. The court reversed and remanded with directions that the arbitration award be reinstated.View "PSC Custom, LP v. United Steel, Paper, etc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. 363A et seq., alleging that the County discriminated her based on her sex and her age when they terminated her employment. Plaintiff also claimed that the County retaliated against her after she took leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment on her MHRA discrimination claims. The court concluded that the County offered a non-discriminatory, legitimate justification for its conduct - plaintiff was terminated based on her repeated record-keeping errors - and plaintiff failed to show that the County's reasons for firing her was pretextual. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's sex discrimination claim. Further, plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to her sex-plus age discrimination claim where her two male co-workers of comparable age did not engage in sufficiently similar misconduct or have a similar disciplinary history. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Doucette v. Morrison County, Minnesota" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of a firearms and a possession charge, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop of his vehicle and the evidence obtained during a search of his apartment. The court concluded that the officer had an objectively reasonable basis for justifying the stop of the vehicle. The court concluded that because defendant's vehicle did not have metal license plates and lacked a readily apparent temporary paper registration card, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the vehicle did not comply with state law. Therefore, the officer had a reasonable basis justifying the stop of the vehicle and the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence recovered from the vehicle. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence recovered from the apartment where, at the time of the dog sniff, the officer was objectively reasonable in relying on binding precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Givens" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the discretionary denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The court concluded that petitioner's argument that the IJ and the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard is without merit and the court lacked jurisdiction to review this claim. Further, petitioner's claim that the BIA's failure to analyze two significant hardship factors violated his due process rights failed because cancellation of removal is a discretionary remedy. Because adjustment of status including cancellation of removal amounts to a power to dispense mercy, an alien can have no constitutionally protected liberty interest in such speculative relief and cannot state a claim for a violation of due process rights. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.View "Nunez-Portillo v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Arkansas imposed more stringent limits on the dissolved minerals EDCC could discharge into two unnamed tributaries (UTA and UTB), and granted EDCC three years to comply. EDCC then initiated a Third Party Rulemaking to increase the levels of dissolved minerals permitted in both UTA and UTB. Arkansas adopted these revisions but the EPA rejected the changes. On appeal EDCC, argued that EPA overstepped its authority in considering the effects on aquatic life in the two creeks at issue. The court concluded that the EPA's reading of its own regulations - that it may look at downstream waters when evaluating a state's water quality standards - was not plainly erroneous; the EPA's refusal to approve the proposed water quality criteria on the basis of incomplete information was not arbitrary or capricious and there was a rational basis for the EPA's disapproval; and the EPA's disapproval of the mass balance approach was not arbitrary or capricious.View "El Dorado Chemical Co. v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law