Free Newsletter
The Thomas F. Eagleton Federal Courthouse in St. Louis, where the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resides. (File photo)
8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: July 6, 2022
Minnesota Lawyer//July 7, 2022
Civil Practice
Adverse Summary Judgment
Diversity Action
Where appellant challenged an adverse grant of summary judgment and the denial of his motion to certify a question to the Arkansas Supreme Court, the grant of summary judgment was proper, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Judgment is affirmed.
Civil Rights
Child Neglect Investigation
First Amendment; Immunity
Where parents sued a child welfare investigator alleging that the investigator conducted the investigation against them in retaliation for their earlier threat to sue a sheriff’s deputy and thus violating their First Amendment rights, the defendants’ actions were not entitled to absolute immunity, but the complaint did not show a violation of a clearly established right, so the investigator was entitled to qualified immunity for both investigative acts.
Judgment is reversed.
Detainee Action
Medical Needs; Hernia Surgery
Where a pretrial detainee, who needed surgery for a hernia, brought an action claiming that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, summary judgment for the defendants is affirmed because the detainee did not establish a detrimental effect of the delay in treatment, so he did not establish a serious medical need, and he also did not show that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference.
Judgment is affirmed.
Excessive Force
Failure to Train; Qualified Immunity
Plaintiffs’ complaint returned on remand from the Supreme Court’s vacatur of the court’s decision affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants, arising from the death of plaintiffs’ son in defendants’ custody. The district court had held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because officers had not employed excessive force and therefore the city could not be liable for failure to train.
Where the right to be free from a prone restraint under the circumstances of the case was not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ son’s death, the city could not be held liable on a claim of deliberate indifference.
Judgment is affirmed.
Excessive Force
Jurisdiction; Qualified Immunity
Where the family of a man, who was killed by police officers during the execution of a search warrant, brought claims of excessive force, unlawful seizure and state law wrongful death against the city, the police department and the officers, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the denial of the motion for summary judgment on the excessive force claim, and the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force, unlawful seizure claims and conspiracy claims, but the district court erred in concluding that disputed issues of material fact existed as to whether the city was self-insured, so the denial of the city’s claim for sovereign immunity is reversed.
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
False Arrest
Qualified Immunity; Insufficient Investigation
Plaintiffs appealed from the dismissal of their §1983 action against police Detective Beary Bowels, who investigated a shooting of a city fire captain and his passenger. The fire captain repeatedly described the shooter as a “Black male.” Plaintiffs became a target of the investigation when surveillance video showed them in the area at the time of the shooting and Bowles requested multiple search and arrest warrants. However, Bowles’ affidavits left out the fact that the shooter was Black, whereas plaintiffs are white.
Where the detective did not actually know that the fire captain had described the shooter as Black, his potentially reckless investigation of the shooting did not preclude the application of qualified immunity.
Shepherd, J., dissenting: “In my view, affording the amended complaint a fair reading, appellants allege that before Detective Bowles prepared applications for the arrest of the appellants and for the search warrants, he was aware that immediately after the shooting, the victim had identified the shooter as black. Accordingly, I dissent.”
Judgment is affirmed.
Oil & Gas Pipeline
Protests; Barricading of Highway Access
Defendants appealed from the denial of their motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs, a group of Standing Rock tribal members and other individuals protesting the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, filed suit to challenge the closure of a section of a state highway by law enforcement following skirmishes between protestors and law enforcement. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.
Where the district court failed to analyze whether defendants had violated a clearly established right of plaintiffs, its qualified immunity analysis was insufficient and required remand.
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
Open Container Citation
Legality of Traffic Stop; Qualified Immunity
Plaintiff appealed from the summary judgment dismissal of his civil rights claim against police officers involved in his traffic stop that led to his citation for an open container.
Where evidence did not support a finding that officers “seized” plaintiff when they pulled in behind him, and where the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation by plaintiff, the officers had qualified immunity when plaintiff could not raise a triable issue as to whether the officers unreasonably prolonged the stop. Plaintiff was also not entitled to relief where he could not show the officers’ action were motivated by plaintiff’s race.
Judgment is affirmed.
Ordinance Violation
Constitutionality of Ordinance; Abuse of Process/Malicious Prosecution
Plaintiffs appealed from the dismissal of their complaint. Plaintiffs filed suit after they were prosecuted by defendant city for replacing a driveway without a permit. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance and alleged that defendant subjected them to abuse of process and malicious prosecution.
Where city officials had no knowledge of plaintiff Kendall Nygard’s involvement in the disputed activities and failed to conduct any investigation as to her role before prosecuting her, the district court erred in dismissing her malicious prosecution claim. The court otherwise affirmed dismissal of the other claims.
Judgment is affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.
Consumer Law
Products Liability
Class Action; Cy Pres Distribution
A class member objected to the settlement between the parties resolving the class action alleging that defendants deceptively labeled their weed killer products as safe for exposure to people and animals. The putative class member challenged the district court’s approval of the distribution of settlement funds.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order the use of retailer records to contact consumers, or in calculating the reasonableness of the settlements funds to be distributed to the class or in ordering that such funds be distributed cy pres, as a cy pres distribution was not compelled speech.
Judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Law
Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Child
Notice of Expert Testimony; Use of Victim’s Forensic Interview
Defendant appealed from his conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Defendant argued that the district court erred in admitting the government’s expert witness, contending that there was insufficient notice, and that the expert’s testimony was irrelevant where she had not evaluated defendant. Defendant also challenged the admission of the victim’s forensic interview, arguing that it violated his Confrontation Clause rights.
Where the rules only required disclosure of the opinions that the expert will testify to at trial, there was no error in admission of the expert’s testimony where the expert was called only to opine on the general characteristics of sex offenders, rather than defendant specifically. Defendant was also able to cross-examine the victim, who also testified in-person.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1471 U.S. v. Counts, Colloton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Drug and Firearm Offenses
Above-Guidelines Range Sentence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant pled guilty to various drug and firearm offenses, after an incident where he shot police officers who arrived to arrest him on drug charges. Including a mandatory consecutive 10-year sentence, defendant had an advisory Guidelines range of 250-282 months. The district court ultimately imposed a 420-month sentence. Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Where the district court did not weigh the emotional trauma experienced by an officer in watching his partner be shot by defendant, and where the district court properly considered the mitigating factors advanced by defendant, it did not abuse its discretion in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2788 U.S. v. Cruz, Melloy, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Extrinsic Evidence
Prior Conviction; Sentencing
Where a defendant challenged the admission of evidence of a prior conviction, the district court did not err in admitting evidence that the defendant had a 20-year-old conviction since he told police that he had never possessed a firearm, and the court also did not err in admitting evidence that the defendant had been convicted 20 years earlier for shooting a pregnant woman as it was permissible extrinsic evidence to show that he had lied about the gun possession, and the judgment is affirmed because the sentence was also substantively reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
20-2651 U.S. v. Vaca, Stras, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Felon in Possession of a Firearm
Use in Robbery; Challenge to Sentence
Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed by the district court following his negotiated guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant argued that the district court erred in concluding that he used the firearm during the commission of a robbery and imposing the robbery offense level.
The district court properly relied on police reports and grand jury testimony to find that defendant had committed a robbery in which he stole the firearm as well as cash from the victim.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3820 U.S. v. Webb, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Felony Murder
Motion in Limine; Marital Communications Privilege
The government appealed from the grant of defendant’s motion in limine. Defendant was charged with arson and felony murder. He moved to exclude incriminating statements he privately made to his wife. The district court granted the motion, rejecting application of the spousal-victim exception to the marital communications privilege.
Where defendant admitted that he had committed the arson because he believed his spouse was inside the building and was having an affair, those statements were exempted from the marital communications privilege pursuant to the exception covering offenses committed against a third-party victim in the course of attempting an offense against a spouse.
Judgment is reversed.
21-1489 U.S. v. White Owl, Colloton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Hobbs Act Robbery
Post-Conviction Relief; Legality of Sentence
Petitioner moved for post-conviction relief following his guilty plea to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. Petitioner sought to vacate his firearm conviction pursuant to U.S. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, which ruled that the residual clause in petitioner’s offense of conviction was unconstitutionally vague.
Petitioner overcame the procedural defect of not challenging the constitutionality of the residual clause because the law at the time of his plea or direct appeal did not provide a reasonable basis to raise such a challenge, and petitioner was prejudiced because he would not have pled guilty as no predicate offense was charged, and the court determined that Davis applied retroactively to cases on collateral review.
Judgment is vacated.
20-2067 Jones v. U.S., Colloton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.
Motion To Suppress
Independent Source Doctrine; Protective Sweep
Where a defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, on remand the district court found that law enforcement would have requested and obtained a federal warrant to search the apartment notwithstanding a protective sweep, so the independent source doctrine justified the denial of suppression.
Judgment is affirmed.
20-2796 U.S. v. Green, Grasz, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Possession with Intent to Distribute
Motion to Suppress Evidence; Sufficiency of Warrant Affidavit
Defendant appealed from his conditional guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized in a search of his evidence. Defendant further challenged the denial of a hearing to contest the sufficiency of the affidavit in support of the search warrant.
Where the officers who executed the search warrant had an objectively reasonable basis to rely in good faith on the issuing judge’s determination of probable cause, defendant was not entitled to a hearing or relief where he failed to make a prima facie showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth during the warrant application.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-2275 U.S. v. Randle, Loken, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.
Sentencing
Appeal Waiver
Where a defendant challenged his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, the appeal waiver was enforceable and covered all but one of the issues, and the ineffective assistance claim was too early to consider based on the state of the record, so the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1383 U.S. v. Brown, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Sentencing
Appeal Waiver; Inadequate Explanation
Where the government moved to dismiss a defendant’s appeal based on an appeal waiver included in the written plea agreement, the motion to dismiss is denied because the district court did not explain the terms of the appeal waiver or ensure that the defendant knew the terms, and the judgment is affirmed because the sentence was substantively reasonable, and the court did not err in deciding to place greater weight on the defendant’s criminal history and characteristics.
Plea colloquy
Dissenting opinion by Stras, J.: “I would enforce the appeal waiver. The plea colloquy did not fall short, it went too far: the district court informed Delong that he had waived all appellate rights, including those he had explicitly reserved in the plea agreement. Now he wants to appeal, but none of the issues he raises falls into any of the categories of claims he reserved. Under these circumstances, when Delong was willing to plead guilty despite being told he waived all appellate rights, I cannot imagine how being told that he waived fewer of them would have made him less likely to agree to the appeal waiver and plead guilty.”
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1736 U.S. v. Delong, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Sentencing
Drug Quantity; Uncharged Conduct
Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a drug possession case, the district court did not err in including the amounts of fentanyl possessed by the co-conspirators in calculating the drug amount that the defendant was responsible for, and there was an adequate ground to find that the defendant committed an uncharged shooting and to enhance his sentence since enhancements for uncharged conduct only need to be supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Judgment is affirmed.
Sentencing
Supervised Release; Revocation
Where a defendant challenged the sentence imposed after he violated the conditions of supervised release, the sentence was substantively reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1588 U.S. v. Durley, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Sentencing
Supervised Release; Substantive Reasonableness
Where a defendant challenged the sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release, the sentence was not substantively unreasonable given the defendant’s repeated violations of his supervised release.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3475 U.S. v. Harris, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Unlawful Possession of a Firearm
Upward Sentencing Departure; Improper Sentencing Factor
Defendant appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. Defendant challenged the upward departure from the sentencing Guidelines, arguing that the district court gave weight to an improper, irrelevant sentencing factor.
Where the district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, it was not bound to adhere to the Guidelines when it found factors that the district court believed were not accounted for by the Guidelines, such as the fact that defendant’s prior fatal shooting of a victim was not technically deemed a “crime of violence.”
Judgment is affirmed.
21-1711 U.S. v. Jones, Colloton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Immigration
Asylum
Withholding of Removal
Where a petitioner sought review of an order denying him asylum and withholding of removal relief, the agency did not err in determining that the petitioner did not qualify for asylum because he did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on a protected ground, and he also failed to demonstrate the required nexus between his fear of persecution and his membership in the group.
Petition denied.
Insurance Law
Life Insurance Proceeds
Interpleader; Unclean Hands
Where appellant challenged the dismissal of her breach of contract claim against her insurer in a dispute over her late husband’s life insurance beneficiary proceeds, the district court did not err in determining that the unclean hands doctrine did not prevent the insurer from using interpleader as an equitable defense to a defendant’s counterclaim for breach of contract, and the undisputed facts showed that the decedent shared fault, which led to the competing claims for the proceeds and the need to file the interpleader action, and the court properly found that the insurer had not acted in bad faith and was entitled to summary judgment on the counterclaim.
Judgment is affirmed.
Related Content
Top News
- Target faces ‘non-drowsy’ meds suit
- Melodie Rose named president at Fredrikson
- Supreme Court lawyers have rituals of their own
- Minnesota artists consider what’s next in AI copyrights
- 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
Expert Testimony
- Briefly: A chat with Supreme Court Commissioner Tim Droske
- Perspectives: Oral arguments at high court stir lively debates
- Quandaries & Quagmires: Advance waivers: Lessons from Paul Hastings vs. Coca Cola
- Perspectives: Recent cellphone ruling recalls high court cases
