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

Petitioner, convicted of a drug offense, appealed the district court's dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Plaintiff alleged that his counsel was ineffective in failing to move to suppress evidence and to seek a hearing based on alleged false statements by a police officer in a search warrant. Plaintiff contended that counsel should have moved for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, alleging that an officer stated falsely in his affidavit that petitioner's trash cans were located at the curb. The court concluded that counsel reasonably could have concluded that petitioner's allegations were insufficient to make the "substantial preliminary showing" that would trigger a Franks hearing. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing petitioner's section 2255 motion without a hearing because even accepting his allegations as true, counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Anderson, Jr. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against prison officials after he was attacked three times by fellow inmates over the course of about a year and a half. Plaintiff claimed that the officials violated his Eighth Amendment right against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment when they failed to protect him from those attacks. The court concluded that officials offered plaintiff protective custody, which he declined; when officials placed him in protective custody anyway, plaintiff asked to be returned to the general population; and plaintiff repeatedly denied the existence of any potential problems. Plaintiff failed to even show negligence, much less deliberate indifference on the part of the officials. Therefore, plaintiff has not demonstrated that prison officials responded unreasonably and, therefore, that the officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Walls v. Tadman, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty without a plea agreement to various drug and firearms offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error in applying a U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 departure, based on defendant's substantial assistance; there was no plain error when the government asked the district court to depart from the top of the advisory guidelines range and the government did not breach the cooperation agreement; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court carefully reviewed the sentencing record and carefully explained the sentence imposed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Deering, Sr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his deceased son's employer and the insurer, MetLife, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq, after plaintiff was denied benefits of the son's life insurance policy. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff's section 1132(a)(1)(B) claim where there were outstanding questions of material fact regarding whether MetLife abused its discretion when it denied benefits because the plan did not define evidence of insurability; reversed the denial of plaintiff's motion to add a claim under section 1132(a)(3); and remanded to the district court so that plaintiff has a full opportunity to litigate both his ERISA claims. View "Silva v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401-434. The court agreed with the district court that the ALJ properly articulated his reasons for granting little weight to plaintiff's physician's opinions, and for finding the physician's opinions to be inconsistent with the record as a whole; that the ALJ properly considered plaintiff's medical records, observations of treating physicians, and plaintiff's own description of his limitations in making the residual functional capacity (RFC) assessment for plaintiff; and that the ALJ made a proper RFC determination based on a fully and fairly developed record. The court also concluded that substantial evidence exists in the record to support the ALJ's adverse credibility finding, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to remand for reconsideration under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Whitman v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Cargotec appealed the district court's conclusion that Cargotec's contract with NMC did not contain arbitration and indemnification provisions. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that whether the arbitration clause became part of the parties' agreement remains a question "presumptively committed to judicial determination." On the merits, the court concluded that the district court erred in failing to order a trial to resolve material factual disputes concerning whether the parties agreed to arbitration and indemnification. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to hold a non-jury trial, making findings of fact, and apply the appropriate U.C.C. provisions in light of those facts. View "Nebraska Machinery Co. v. Cargotec Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Gambia, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of her appeal from an IJ's order that she be removed from the United States. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the IJ's finding that petitioner gave false testimony - that she was not married - for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit - adjustment of status based on being an unmarried daughter over the age of twenty-one. The court further concluded that petitioner did not present a claim of direct persecution to the BIA and the BIA did not violate her due process rights by construing her appeal to raise only a derivative claim for withholding of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Goswell-Renner v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an orthopedic surgeon and former consultant at Stryker, filed suit alleging that Stryker and I-Flow violated the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, by marketing their pain pumps to encourage the placement of pain pumps directly into patients' joint spaces after orthopedic procedures. The court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiff's allegations had been publicly disclosed and that plaintiff was not excepted under section 3730(e)(4)(B) as an "original source" of the information. The court rejected plaintiff's claim of procedural error and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims under section 3730(e)(4)(A). View "Paulos v. Stryker Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City, challenging the state's vehicle forfeiture proceeding under Minnesota Stat. 169A.63, Subdiv. 8(b). After looking at the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court concluded that the City's current process - allowing those affected by vehicle forfeiture to request a judicial determination if they believe the forfeiture was erroneous - was sufficient to satisfy due process. In regards to plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim, his vehicle was lawfully subject to forfeiture, and given his conviction for a fourth DWI, he was not entitled to get it back. Therefore, even if there hypothetically could have been a prolonged seizure had plaintiff requested a judicial determination within thirty days, he cannot show that he suffered any harm from the City's retention of his vehicle because the City was then the rightful owner. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City. View "Booker v. The City of Saint Paul" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit bank robbery, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the conspiracy and possession charges; the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion in limine to exclude Rule 404(b) evidence where he confessed to a prior armed bank robbery because it was probative of his intent and was not unduly prejudicial; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Bassett" on Justia Law