Minnesota Lawyer
Civil Practice
Statute Of Limitations
Water Service; Curtailment
PWSD, a water supply district, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to a city that provided water and utility services to subdivisions outside the city’s corporate limits but with the district’s service areas. On appeal, the city argued statute of limitations as an alternative ground for affirming the district court’s judgment. The district argued its claims were timely under the continuing-violations doctrine
Where the city began serving the subdivisions “in or before 1994” and a 7 U.S.C. §1926(b) violation must occur when a municipality begins providing service to a subdivision, the court held the district’s claims were time-barred.
Judgment is affirmed.
Civil Rights
Eighth Amendment
Failure to Render Medical Care; Lack of Personal Involvement
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim.
Where the evidence did not support finding that defendant was involved in providing medical treatment to plaintiff, the district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s individual-capacity claims against defendant.
Judgment is affirmed.
Excessive Force
Qualified Immunity; Exercise of First Amendment Rights
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s excessive force claim. Plaintiff was participating in a protest. She was initially at one courthouse where other protesters were throwing rocks at the building. She later went to another courthouse where no property damage was occurring. Defendant, a police officer, arrived at the second courthouse and within seconds deployed pepper spray in plaintiff’s face. The district court denied defendant qualified immunity.
Where the evidence could support a finding that defendant had pepper-sprayed plaintiff in retaliation for the exercise of her First Amendment rights, the district court correctly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3504 Welch v. Dempsey, Colloton, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Preliminary Injunction
Prison Transfer; Mootness
Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction.
Where plaintiff was transferred to another prison during the pendency of the action, that transfer mooted his request for injunctive relief.
Appeal is dismissed.
Prison Inmate
Deliberate Indifference to Medical Need; Dismissal of Complaint
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his complaint against Federal Medical Center Rochester and three of its staff members.
Where defendant had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the district court properly dismissed the action.
Judgment is affirmed.
Seizure of Legal Mail
First Amendment Violation; Personal Involvement in Violation
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff filed suit alleging violation of her First Amendment rights after legal mail was allegedly seized from her prison cell.
Where plaintiff had failed to show the personal involvement of defendants or that she was prejudiced by the disclosure of her alleged legal mail, the district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants.
Judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Law
Cocaine Sales
Armed Career Criminal Act; ‘Serious Drug Offense’
The government appealed the district court’s judgment ruling that defendant’s prior Minnesota convictions for selling cocaine did not constitute “serious drug offenses” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The district court had concluded that the ACCA did not apply because the Minnesota statute included drugs not listed on the federal controlled substance schedules.
Where the Minnesota statute of conviction included all “Schedule II” drugs, it encompassed a broader definition of controlled substances than the federal schedules and therefore could not constitute a “serious drug offense” under the ACCA.
Judgment is affirmed.
Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs
Statutory Minimum Sentence; Safety Valve Relief
Defendant appealed the judgment of sentence imposed after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. The district court concluded that defendant was subject to a five-year statutory minimum sentence. It further concluded that defendant was ineligible for safety valve relief because he failed to satisfy various conditions. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in reading the safety valve statute disjunctively rather than conjunctively and that he was eligible unless he failed all three conditions.
Where case law held that the conjunctive language of the safety value statute was intended to be distributive rather than joint, failing any one of the provisions precluded eligibility for relief.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1191 U.S. v. Jackson, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Drug and Firearms Offenses
Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, after the district court imposed a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range.
Where defendant’s challenge was covered by his appeal waiver, the court dismissed the appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.
U.S. v. Reyes (MLW No. 79011/Case Nos. 22-2076 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Harpool, J.
https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/10/222076U.pdf
Possession of Firearm by Felon
Prior Offense as Crime of Violence; Upward Sentencing Variance
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to possession of a firearm as a felon. Defendant’s conviction arose from an incident in which police responding to a fight in progress at a gas station saw defendant in an altercation; after chasing defendant and subduing him, police found several firearms on and around defendant. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in considering one of his prior convictions as a crime of violence and in imposing an upward sentencing variance.
Where defendant’s prior conviction had a mens rea requirement of knowledge, it properly constituted a crime of violence, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward variance to account for the risk that defendant created by having an altercation while possessing firearms around flammable fuel at the gas station.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1121 U.S. v. Irwin, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Possession with Intent to Distribute
Judgment of Acquittal; Rule 16 Violation
Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and conspiracy. Defendant was arrested when DEA agents, acting on a tip that an individual named Gino Wells was expecting a shipment of methamphetamine, went to Wells’ home and found a duffel bag with methamphetamine. Defendant was at the home with other individuals when agents arrived. Wells pled guilty to drug charges and agreed to testify against defendant. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and argued the district court erred in allowing Wells to read a text message that had not been disclosed to the defense prior to trial.
Where Wells’ testimony, corroborated by law enforcement witnesses, provided ample evidence of defendant’s participation in drug-related activities, the district court properly denied judgment of acquittal, and there was no prejudice from allowing Wells to read the text message where defense counsel was permitted an opportunity to review the text and cross-examine Wells about it.
Judgment is affirmed.
Possession with Intent to Distribute
Misstatements at Sentencing; Prejudicial Effect
Defendant appealed his sentence, imposed after he pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Defendant sought to vacate his sentence based on alleged misstatements made at sentencing.
Where the district court fully explained the reasons for the sentence it imposed and nothing indicated that the district court had relied upon any alleged incorrect information, the court affirmed the sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3477 U.S. v. Plump, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Child Sexual Abuse; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the judgment of sentence imposed following a third revocation of his supervised release. Defendant’s supervision stemmed from a conviction for child sexual abuse. At the time of that conviction, defendant was already a registered sex offender for a prior child sexual abuse conviction. Defendant’s current revocation stemmed from his association with a minor child, after he conceived a child with a woman but failed to disclose the pregnancy, and from defendant’s social media use. On appeal, defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Where the district court did not assert that defendant had abused his newborn child and was entitled to consider the nature of his original offense in context of his current conduct that led to the revocation of supervised release, the sentence it imposed was not substantively unreasonable given defendant’s willingness to engage in deception to associate with minor children.
Judgment is affirmed.
Sentencing
Appeal Waiver
Where a defendant challenged his above-guidelines sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court declined to consider the ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal, and the appeal waiver was valid, enforceable and applicable to the defendant’s challenge, so the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
22-2271 U.S. v. Lewis, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
Sentencing
Revocation Sentence; Upward Variance
Where a defendant appealed his supervised release revocation sentence in firearm case, the upward variance was not an abuse of the district court’s discretion, and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1849 U.S. v. Crane, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Environmental
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
Interim Estimates; Article III Standing
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their complaint against the federal government. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to preclude the federal government from using interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases published by an interagency working group as binding values for any federal agency action. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, concluding that they lacked Article III standing and that their claims were not ripe for adjudication.
Where plaintiffs’ complaint effectively sought a court order directing the current presidential administration to comply with prior administrations’ policies on regulatory analysis, with no underlying specific agency action to review, such relief was outside the authority of the courts to grant, and plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because their complaint merely advanced general grievances rather than alleging concrete, particularized harm.
Judgment is affirmed.
