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

In 2008, Taney County, through its Planning Commission, issued Emerald Pointe a permit to develop a gated community with private roads. Emerald Pointe subsequently began construction of the project. In 2016, the Planning Commission issued a stop-work order, demanding Emerald Pointe comply with requirements for certain public improvements. Emerald Pointe appealed to the Taney County Board of Adjustment (“BOA”), arguing the requirements did not apply to the permit. The BOA denied the appeal, and Emerald Pointe filed suit against the Planning Commission and BOA in the Circuit Court of Taney County, seeking judicial review of the stop-work order pursuant to Missouri Revised Statute Section 64.870. Emerald Pointe filed a lawsuit under Section 1983 for damages incurred while a stop-work order was in place. The district court dismissed the case after finding the suit barred by res judicata. Emerald Pointe appealed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that it applies Missouri res judicata law because the final judgment was issued by a Missouri court. Emerald Pointe could have brought the Section 1983 claim in the state court case. Emerald Pointe argues a Section 1983 claim could not have been added to the request for judicial review of the stop-work order under Missouri Revised Statute Section 64.870. Section 64.870 is the exclusive remedy for challenging the issuance of a stop-work order. However, nothing precludes a plaintiff from adding an additional claim to the state court case for judicial review. View "Emerald Pointe, LLC v. Taney County Missouri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was held in pretrial custody at the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility (the Jail) in Little Rock, Arkansas, for five weeks. After he was released, Plaintiff filed a suit for damages against a Pulaski County official, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and disability discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all of Plaintiff’s claims.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Section 1983 deliberate indifference and conditions-of-confinement claims. But because triable issues remain on Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim under the ADA and ACRA, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that the record shows that Plaintiff indeed submitted “grievances” to the Jail complaining, for example, that he could not “stand up,” that he lacked help “changing or cleaning” himself, and that he could not “transfer to a toilet [and] back to the chair.” Moreover, at least one of Plaintiff’s disabilities—his paraplegia and the concomitant need for accommodations—was “obvious.” Thus, a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether the Jail was on notice that Hall needed accommodations. Further, the court wrote that A viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the Jail failed to provide him with meaningful access to beds, toilets, and the identified medical care services. View "Carlos Hall, Sr. v. Eric Higgins" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District of South Dakota challenging the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court’s exercise of jurisdiction in a custody matter involving his minor daughter, C.S.N. Petitioner claimed that the Tribal Court’s refusal to recognize and enforce North Dakota state court orders awarding him custody of C.S.N. violated the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1738A. The district court granted summary judgment to the Tribal Court after concluding that the PKPA does not apply to Indian tribes. Petitioner appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the PKPA does not apply to Indian tribes. As a result, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court is not obligated under that statute to enforce the North Dakota court orders awarding custody of C.S.N. to Petitioner. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the Tribal Court. The court further explained that its conclusion that the PKPA does not apply to Indian tribes is further supported by the fact that when Congress intends for tribes to be subject to statutory full-faith-and-credit requirements, it expressly says so. View "Aarin Nygaard v. Tricia Taylor" on Justia Law

The Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges (“NSCS”) appealed from a jury verdict finding it acted with deliberate indifference after Jane Doe (“Doe”) was sexually assaulted while attending Chadron State College (“Chadron”). On appeal, NSCS raised three claims: (1) the Title IX claim fails as a matter of law; (2) the district court erred when it admitted the expert testimony of Dr. Charol Shakeshaft; and (3) the district court erred in awarding attorney’s fees. We begin with NSCS’s paramount claim that, as a matter of law, it was not deliberately indifferent after Doe reported being sexually assaulted.   The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded with directions that the district court enter judgment in favor of NSCS and vacated the award of Doe’s attorney fees. The court explained that viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that Chadron acted promptly—nearly immediately—upon learning of the assault. Chadron issued a mutually binding no-contact order between Doe and the accused, which was served on the accused at the end of his police interview. Chadron verified that the two students did not share the same classes and promptly initiated an investigation to determine what happened. Chadron interviewed Doe, explained the investigatory process to her, banned the accused from Andrews Hall, and accommodated Doe academically. Further, the court held that Doe cannot show a causal nexus between Chadron’s actions and the sexual assaults or harassment. View "Jane Doe v. Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges" on Justia Law

Defendant and co-Defendant were convicted in district court on charges arising out of the kidnapping of Defendant’s minor grandchildren. Defendant appealed her conviction for aiding and abetting kidnapping, and co-Defendant appealed his conviction for being a prohibited person in possession of firearms. Defendant appealed, asserting (1) the district court erred in refusing to admit the full recording of her interview with law enforcement; (2) the district court erred in instructing the jury and preparing the jury verdict form; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Co-Defendant appealed, asserting the district court erred when it (1) declined to grant his motion to withdraw his plea; and (2) committed procedural error.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that co-Defendant has not offered a fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Moreover, the court wrote that the children’s mother testified that she did not give consent to co-Defendant to take the children and that Defendant told her that co-Defendant was going to take the children because the mother did not love them, did not deserve to be their mother, and was not going to be able to see them ever again. The court found that the record contains more than sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find Defendant guilty of aiding and abetting kidnapping. View "United States v. Nora Guevara Triana" on Justia Law

Defendants pleaded guilty to federal controlled substance offenses, and all three appealed their sentences.   The Fourth Circuit vacated each defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court explained that Texas case law indicates that a defendant can be convicted of “offering to sell a controlled substance” under Section 481.112(a) without having the intent to distribute or dispense drugs. An offer-to-sell conviction is thus categorically broader than an attempt to commit a “controlled substance offense” under the Guidelines. The court explained that the government bears the burden of proving “the facts necessary to establish a sentencing enhancement” by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, the court concluded that, once Defendant objected to the factual recitation in the PSR, the government failed to meet its burden as to both the obstruction-of-justice and the violent-threat enhancements. View "United States v. Jaime Campos" on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked for the City of Clarendon, Arkansas, as a full-time police officer. After he was terminated, he sued the City, then-Chief of Police Laura Rash, and then-Clarendon Mayor James L. Stinson, alleging a violation of the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act and retaliation for the exercise of his free speech rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the free speech claim, and the case proceeded to trial on the whistleblower claim. The jury returned a verdict for Defendants. Plaintiff appealed, arguing the district court erred in its pre-trial discovery rulings, its grant of summary judgment to the defendants, and its denial of his motion for a new trial.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that at summary judgment, there was no evidence that Plaintiff sought to convey that message when he gave the video to Deputy Thorne. Instead, the record showed that Plaintiff asserted the opposite, telling Whitcomb and Times that he was trying to “protect” them and expressly denying any intent to give the video to Thorne for investigatory purposes. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s free speech claim. View "John Marlow v. City of Clarendon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff contracted hepatitis C after participating in drug trials and screenings at Pharma Medica Research, Inc. (Pharma Medica) and other companies. He sued Pharma Medica for negligence, and a jury found in favor of Pharma Medica. Challenging the jury instructions and the district court’s evidentiary rulings, Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied. Plaintiff appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff argued that the district court should have struck the expert testimony of Dr. Aronsohn and Glasgow-Roberts because Pharma Medica failed to timely disclose that it had sent the two witnesses certain documents, like the deposition transcript of Plaintiff’s expert witness and Plaintiff’s hepatitis C testing records, for review before they testified at trial. The court explained that even assuming Pharma Medica violated Rule 26(e), Plaintiff failed to articulate how Pharma Medica’s nondisclosures were prejudicial. Dr. Aronsohn’s opinion did not change after he reviewed the non-disclosed documents. And his trial testimony was consistent with his deposition testimony, which was given before he received the non-disclosed documents. There was no “unfair surprise” to Plaintiff, then, when Dr. Aronsohn’s opinion remained unchanged. View "Ian Wallace v. Pharma Medica Research, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. The district court sentenced Smith to 180 months imprisonment as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(e). Defendant appealed an order denying his motion to suppress evidence and challenges his sentence. At issue on appeal is whether the seizure was nonetheless reasonable, and whether evidence discovered in the course of the seizure was admissible in Defendant’s prosecution.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the totality of the circumstances provided the officers with a reasonable, articulable basis to believe that the suspect they were looking for was in the car that they stopped. Here, the Officers had reasonable suspicion that the suspect used a particular cellular telephone. One of the officers received the telephone number from a known informant. The informant had proved reliable by providing accurate information about the suspect’s possession of guns and drugs in the past. The informant reported recently speaking with the suspect at the specified phone number. Officers were armed with a judicial warrant based on a finding of probable cause that the suspect used the target phone number. When officers then determined that the man traveled the same route as the telephone associated with the suspect a reasonable officer could have believed, mistakenly, that the man under surveillance was the suspect. Accordingly, the stop did not violate Defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, and the district court properly denied the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Romelle Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for having knowingly procured her naturalization contrary to law in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1425(a). Defendant made several false statements in procuring her naturalization. The issues on appeal are whether the government met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the false statements were material, as that element of the Section 1425(a) offense was defined in Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017), and whether they were made “under oath.”
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant argued that the false statements were immaterial because they did not necessarily establish she lacked good moral character. The court disagreed, reasoning that 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(f) provides that “no person shall be regarded as, or found to be, a person of good moral character who” gives false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit in violation of Section 1101(f)(6). Moreover, Defendant argued that “false testimony” is limited to false statements given verbally under oath. As the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the false statements in her N-400 Application for Naturalization were given orally and under oath, the government failed to present sufficient evidence, and we “need not even address materiality.” The court explained that the district court t was free to find the testimony of a USCIS supervisory officer more credible than the contrary opinion of Defendant’s expert, who admitted she had never attended a naturalization interview in Des Moines. Accordingly, the court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could find she acted to obtain immigration benefits for her spouse. View "United States v. Deanah Cheboss" on Justia Law