Free Newsletter
8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: Dec. 1, 2021
Minnesota Lawyer//December 2, 2021
Civil Practice
ERISA
Long-Term Disability; Denial Of Benefits
Where an insurer appealed after the district court granted summary judgment to a claimant of long-term disability benefits who had argued that the insurer’s denial of benefits violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, error by the district court in resolving factual disputes was harmless, and the judgment is affirmed.
Inmate Action
FTCA; Jurisdiction
Where an inmate challenged an adverse grant of summary judgment in his Federal Tort Claims Act action, the inmate failed to provide medical expert testimony in support of his claim of medical negligence as required, and the judgment is affirmed since the court lacked jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge’s orders denying the inmate’s motions for appointment of counsel because he did not appeal those orders to the district court. Judgment is affirmed.
Post-Judgment Motions
Rule 60(b)
Where appellant challenged the denial of his post-judgment motions in a habeas proceeding, the district court did not abuse its discretion, and the judgment is affirmed.
Civil Rights
Inmate Action
Medical Treatment; Deliberate Indifference
Where an inmate challenged an adverse grant of summary judgment on his claims of delayed and denied medical treatment, the record showed that neither defendant was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, and the district court also did not err in denying his motion for the appointment of expert witnesses. Judgment is affirmed.
Political Activities
Retaliation; First Amendment
Where appellants, deputy sheriffs who were terminated or demoted by a newly elected sheriff, challenged the dismissal of their actions alleging violations of their First Amendment rights by the new sheriff’s retaliatory actions since they supported the new sheriff’s opponent, government employees’ right to support political candidates without adverse action is not absolute, and the sheriff was allowed to take adverse employment action under the Elrod-Branti test. Judgment is affirmed.
20-2961 Burns v. Cole, Shepherd, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Truck Seizure
Qualified Immunity; Tortious Interference
Where plaintiff, a company contracted to perform road work on state highways, challenged an adverse summary judgment on its claims of trespass to chattel and tortious interference with contract based on claims that the defendant seized plaintiff’s trucks in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed because it was not clearly established at the time that the defendant county engineer’s conduct was prohibited, and the defendants were justified in changing truck weight restrictions and stopping the trucks, and the engineer did not exercise dominion and control over the trucks to support a trespass to chattel claim under Minnesota law. Judgment is affirmed.
Contracts
Employment Agreement
Whistleblower; Independent Contractor
Where a terminated emergency room physician challenged the grant of summary judgment in favor of her employers on her claims of breach of contract and violations of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, the plaintiff was an independent contractor, so she could not bring an action under the act, and her breach of contract claim was barred by the state’s statute of limitations. Judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Law
Sentencing
First Step Act
Where a defendant sought a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the reduction because the court had a reasonable basis for the determination. Judgment is affirmed.
Sentencing
Range Calculation; Consecutive Sentences
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court did not err by applying a four-level increase in calculating the offense level, and the denial of a reduction for the acceptance of responsibility was also appropriate, so the judgment is affirmed since it was not an abuse of discretion to order that the federal sentence be consecutive to an undischarged state sentence. Judgment is affirmed.
20-2947 U.S. v. Haynes, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Sentencing
Recusal; Conflict Of Interest
Where a defendant challenged his sentence and the denial of his motion to recuse a district judge, remarks made by the defense counsel about his attendance at the proffer interview raise concerns that the counsel was operating under a conflict of interest, so the matter is vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Vacated; remanded.
20-3410 U.S. v. Roads, per curiam. Appealed U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Sentencing
Revocation
Where a defendant challenged a sentence imposed after the violation of conditions of supervised release, there was no plain error in the district court’s explanation of the revocation sentence, so the judgment is affirmed.
20-1037 U.S. v. Howard, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota.
Sentencing
Substantive Reasonableness
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after he pled guilty to illegally possessing a firearm, the district court properly considered mitigating circumstances, and there was no procedural error, and the sentence was substantively reasonable, so the judgment is affirmed.
20-3456 U.S. v. Carr, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Sentencing
Substantive Reasonableness; Judicial Bias
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to a child pornography offense, the sentence was substantively reasonable, and there was no support for a claim of judicial bias, so the judgment is affirmed.
Sentencing
Upward Departure
Where a defendant challenged an above-guidelines sentence after he pled guilty to a firearm offense, the district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward, and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Judgment is affirmed.
Immigration
Removal
Motion To Reopen
Where a petitioner from El Salvador sought review of an order denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings, the petitioner’s due process claim failed since he did not show actual prejudice, and he failed to submit the required documents, so the Board of Immigration Appeals did not err in denying the motion to reopen. Petition is denied.
Removal
Withholding
Where a petitioner from Mexico sought review of the denial of his motion for the withholding of removal, the petition is denied because the petitioner failed to establish a clear abuse of the immigration judge’s discretionary decision not to grant the petitioner’s last minute request for continuance of his hearing, and the claim that the denial of a continuance violated due process was without merit. Petition denied.
Related Content
Top News
- Defining ‘and’ in sentencing statute falls to Supreme Court
- Hashtag rates higher libel protection
- Court: Performance issues, not bias, prompted union to fire organizer
- Robot milker case yields $122M
- 2023 Up & Coming Attorneys
- 2023 Unsung Legal Heroes
- Appeals court takes up transgender health coverage case
- Court upholds sex-with-minor report submitted by man’s therapist
Expert Testimony
- Quandaries & Quagmires: Advance waivers: Lessons from Paul Hastings vs. Coca Cola
- Perspectives: Recent cellphone ruling recalls high court cases
- The Unfrazzled Lawyer: Supercharge your unfrazzled lawyer efforts
- Understanding the proposal to extend overtime
