Minnesota Lawyer
Civil Rights
§1983
Pretrial Detainee; Deliberate Indifference to Medical Need
Defendants appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, a former pretrial detainee, filed a §1983 suit claiming that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs by denying him prescription medications to treat various conditions. Plaintiff alleged that due to complications from the lack of medication, he attempted suicide and also suffered a cardiac emergency. The district court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, ruling that defendants had fair notice of the unconstitutionality of failing to provide prescription medication.
Where the serious physical and mental health effects of the denial or misadministration of medication supported finding that plaintiff had a serious medical need for his prescription medication, the district court correctly denied qualified immunity where the record showed that defendants knew of and disregarded plaintiff’s medical needs.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1198 Presson v. Reed, Smith, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.
First Amendment Retaliation
Ban from County Property; Qualified Immunity
Defendant appealed the district court’s entry of a preliminary injunction and denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The Camden County Commission voted to ban plaintiff from county property for one year due to his disruptive and harassing behavior towards county officials. Plaintiff filed suit, arguing that his ban constituted First Amendment retaliation, and sought a preliminary injunction against the ban. The district court granted the preliminary injunction and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Where the record sufficiently alleged that defendant had violated plaintiff’s clearly established First Amendment rights, the district court correctly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity, and the appeal from the preliminary injunction was moot due to the expiration of the one-year ban.
Judgment is affirmed.
Criminal Law
Child Pornography
Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Below-Guidelines Sentence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a child pornography offense, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Where the district court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence, defendant’s sentence was presumptively reasonable.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-3016 U.S. v. Letcher, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/04/223106U.pdf
Drug and Firearms Offenses
Career Offender; Predicate Crime of Violence
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug and firearms offenses. The presentence report recommended a career offender sentencing enhancement, stating that defendant had a prior Iowa conviction for conspiracy to commit willful injury and an Illinois conviction for robbery. Defendant objected to the PSR, arguing that neither crime qualified as a crime of violence. The district court overruled defendant’s objection and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence.
Where the Iowa statute was divisible and required juries to find whether a defendant committed a forcible or non-forcible offense and where defendant was expressly convicted of willful injury causing bodily injury, his Iowa conviction constituted a qualifying predicate offense.
Judgment is affirmed.
21-3759 U.S. v. McConnell, Kelly, J. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Drug and Firearms Offenses
Plea Agreement; Appeal Waiver
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug and firearms offenses. Defendant executed a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver.
Where the appeal waiver was valid and applicable to defendant’s issues on appeal, the court dismissed the appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.
22-2951 U.S. v. Reid, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
Felon in Possession of Firearm
Within-Guidelines Sentence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed from the within-Guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug and firearms offenses, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Defendant argued that the district court should have given greater weight to his personal history and characteristics, his acceptance of responsibility, his commitment to recovery, and the relatively minor nature of his criminal history.
Where the district court expressly considered the factors cited by defendant but gave greater weight to the seriousness of his offense of conviction, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion to impose a presumptively reasonable within-Guidelines sentence.
Judgment is affirmed.
Fraud
Waiver of Counsel; Costs of Prosecution
Defendant appealed his conviction for fraud and tax evasion, arguing that his waiver of counsel was unintelligent and involuntary. Defendant further challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and argued that the district court erred in rejecting evidence of the IRS’s lack of diligence. Finally, defendant contended that the district court improperly applied a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. The government cross-appealed, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to award costs of prosecution.
Although the court affirmed defendant’s convictions, the court vacated and remanded his judgment of sentence where the trial court erred in refusing to award costs of prosecution where an award of such costs was mandatory, as the government had no explicit deadline to file a verified bill of costs.
Judgment is vacated and remanded.
Possession with Intent to Distribute
Below-Guidelines Sentence; Voluntariness of Guilty Plea
Defendant appealed from the below-Guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug and firearms offenses. Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence and, in a pro se supplement, argued that his indictment was defective and that his guilty plea was involuntary because he was medicated and his counsel told him he would receive a lesser sentence.
Where defendant confirmed that his medication did not affect his mental capacity, there was no basis to challenge his guilty plea, which also waived any defects in the indictment, and the district court presumptively imposed a reasonable sentence by sentencing defendant below the Guidelines range.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-3059 U.S. v. Wynn, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Production of Child Pornography
Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Special Conditions of Supervised Release
Defendant appealed from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to producing child pornography and committing an offense while a registered sex offender. The district court imposed an aggregate sentence of 840 months, followed by 10 years of supervised release. As a special condition of the supervised release, defendant was ordered not to contact the victims, his nephew and niece, or their family without permission from a probation officer. Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence and argued that the special condition of his supervised release was not the product of an individualized inquiry and was not narrowly tailored or reasonably related to the goals of sentencing.
Where the district court specifically identified each of the statutory sentencing factors and explained the weight it was giving to each factor, the court found no basis to question the reasonableness of defendant’s term of incarceration, and the special condition of his supervised release could only be reasonably interpreted as referring to his niece’s and nephew’s immediate family and thus it did not bar him from contacting other members of their shared family.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1615 U.S. v. Scanlan, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Revocation of Probation
Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his probation, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Defendant further argued that his plea counsel was ineffective for advising him to admit to the violation, and claimed that the district court was biased against him.
Where the district court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors, there was no basis to challenge the reasonableness of the sentence, and defendant’s other issues were cognizable on collateral review.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-3645 U.S. v. Manuel, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa.
Revocation of Supervised Release
Sufficiency of Evidence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence
Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release. While on release, defendant checked into a resort using a credit card he had obtained through his work as a wine distributor. When the cardholder refused to authorize payment, defendant eventually left the property without paying his outstanding balance. Defendant opposed the petition to revoke his supervised release, claiming that he had only authorized credit card charges up to the amount he believed owed to him through his wine distribution. On appeal, defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his revocation and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Where the evidence showed that defendant obtained lodging with no ability to pay because his fees exceeded the amount owed to him by his customer and ultimately furtively absconded from the property, the district court correctly concluded that defendant had intent to defraud an innkeeper.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-1317 U.S. v. Goldberg, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Wire Fraud
Reasonableness of Sentence; Restitution Order
Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following her guilty plea to wire fraud, challenging the reasonableness of her sentence and the district court’s restitution order.
Where defendant received the sentence she requested, the court dismissed her challenge, and defendant also waived her challenge to the restitution order by withdrawing her objection to the loss amounts in the presentence report.
Judgment is affirmed.
22-3585 U.S. v. Smith, per curiam. Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa.
Environmental
Contamination
Bad Faith Failure to Settle; Insurer’s Coverage Obligation
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant. Defendant insured St. Joe Minerals Corporation and plaintiff, St. Joe’s sole shareholder. Plaintiff and St. Joe’s were sued for environmental contamination arising from its lead smelting plant. Zurich paid nearly $10 million on behalf of both companies in four settlements and over $25 million in a settlement between St. Joe’s and the remaining injured parties. Defendant filed a declaratory judgment action to determine its coverage obligation, while plaintiff counterclaimed for bad faith failure to settle. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant, ruling that defendant’s coverage obligation was a per-occurrence basis. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that coverage was on a per-claim basis and that the policy limits do not foreclose its claim.
Where the parties executed an endorsement that amended the coverage declarations to extend liability coverage to a per-claim basis, the district court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant.
Colloton, J., dissenting: “Perhaps no interpretive fault is more common than the failure to follow the whole text canon, which calls on the judicial interpreter to consider the entire text, in view of its structure and of the physical and logical relation of its many parts.” Scalia & Garner, supra, at 167. Fluor’s proposed interpretation of the disputed policy unfortunately suffers from this fault. Fluor focuses on Endorsement #7 in isolation, invokes canons of construction that are unpersuasive even as to the endorsement standing alone, and ignores broader context that convincingly demonstrates the limited scope of Endorsement #7. The district court correctly determined that the policies at issue establish coverage for bodily injury that is subject to an “each occurrence” limit of liability as set forth on the Declarations page. Fluor’s argument for recovery of an additional $20 million based on supposed “each claim” limits of liability should be rejected.”
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
Torts
Mass Tort
Fraudulent Plaintiff Recruiting; Protective Order
Defendants appealed the district court’s grant of plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a protective order. Plaintiffs, who included thousands of Peruvian citizens, alleged that defendants’ lead mining and smelting complex in Peru had caused widespread lead poisoning in the area. Defendants complained to the court about alleged fraudulent conduct by two “plaintiff recruiters” in Peru, whom defendants had reported to Peruvian law enforcement. In support of their fraud claims, defendants sought certain discovery, including verifications from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a protective order to prohibit defendants’ Peruvian counsel from participating in Peruvian law enforcement’s witness interviews. The district court granted the motion, concluding that allowing defense counsel to participate in the interviews would constitute ex parte communication.
Where orders prohibiting ex parte communications were not totally unreviewable on appeal from final judgment, the district court’s order could not be appealed under the collateral order doctrine and was not an appealable order denying or granting injunctive relief.
Judgment is affirmed.
